Holmes v. Gardner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JALEN HOLMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHEAL GARDNER, Correction Officer, et al.,
Defendants.
9:25-CV-1139
(ECC/DJS)
APPEARANCES:
JALEN HOLMES
Plaintiff pro se
22-B-5190
Mid-State Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2500
Marcy, NY 13403
HON. LETITIA JAMES
New York State Attorney General
300 South State Street - Suite 300
Syracuse, NY 13202
Attorney for Defendants
ELIZABETH C. COOMBE
United States District Judge
OF COUNSEL:
SHAWN C. GRAHAM, ESQ.
DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Pro se plaintiff Jalen Holmes ("plaintiff") commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 asserting claims arising out of his confinement in the custody of the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") at Mid-State Correctional
Facility ("Mid-State C.F."). See Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."). Plaintiff, who was incarcerated when
Case 9:25-cv-01139-ECC-DJS Document 30 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 7

2
he filed the action, also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Dkt. No. 4 ("IFP
Application").
In a Decision and Order filed on October 27, 2025 (the "October 2025 Order"), the
Court granted plaintiff's IFP Application and reviewed the complaint for sufficiency in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Dkt. No. 14. The
Court directed defendants Micheal Gardner ("Gardner"), Steven Hark ("Hark"), and Thomas
Delmar ("Delmar") to respond to First Amendment retaliation claims and Eighth Amendment
conditions-of-confinement claims. Id. at 13.
Presently before the Court is plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Dkt.
Nos. 18 and 23. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion is denied.
II. 	MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
A. Legal Standard
Preliminary injunctive relief "is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should
not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion."
Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)). "In general, district courts may grant a
preliminary injunction where a plaintiff demonstrates 'irreparable harm' and meets one of two
related standards: 'either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (b) sufficiently serious
questions going to the merits of its claims to make them fair ground for litigation, plus a
balance of the hardships tipping decidedly in favor of the moving party.' " Otoe-Missouria
Tribe of Indians v. New York State Dep't of Fin. Servs., 769 F.3d 105, 110 (2d Cir. 2014)
(quoting Lynch v. City of N.Y., 589 F.3d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted)). However, when the moving party seeks a "mandatory preliminary injunction that
Case 9:25-cv-01139-ECC-DJS Document 30 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 7

3
alters the status quo by commanding a positive act," the burden is "even higher." Cacchillo
v. Insmed, Inc., 638 F.3d 401, 406 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. VCG
Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 598 F.3d 30, 35 n.4 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks omitted)). Thus, a mandatory preliminary injunction "should issue only upon a clear
showing that the moving party is entitled to the relief requested, or where extreme or very
serious damage will result from a denial of preliminary relief." Citigroup Global Mkts., 598
F.3d at 35 n.4 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The alleged violation of a constitutional right generally satisfies a plaintiff's burden to
demonstrate irreparable harm. Jolly v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 468, 482 (2d Cir. 1996). However,
"[i]rreparable harm is injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent
and that cannot be remedied by an award of monetary damages." N.Y. ex rel. Schneiderman
v. Actavis PLC, 787 F.3d 638, 660 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed sub nom. Allergan PLC v. N.Y.
ex. rel. Schneiderman, 136 S. Ct. 581 (2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Furthermore, "[t]o prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must
establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct giving rise
to the complaint." Candelaria v. Baker, No. 00-CV-0912, 2006 WL 618576, at *3 (W.D.N.Y.
Mar. 10, 2006) (citations omitted); see also Allen v. Brown, No. 96-CV-1599 (RSP/GJD),
1998 WL 214418, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 1998) (denying request for injunctive relief where
allegations in application for such relief were unrelated to claims asserted in the complaint
and thus plaintiff "failed to establish either a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of his
underlying claim, or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of such claim and a
balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward" the plaintiff). "In the prison context, a request
for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution so as not to immerse the federal
Case 9:25-cv-01139-ECC-DJS Document 30 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 7

4
judiciary in the management of state prisons." Fisher v. Goord, 981 F.Supp. 140, 167
(W.D.N.Y. 1997) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 846-47 (1994)) (other citations
omitted).
As plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction, he must meet the higher standard and
establish a clear or substantial likelihood of success or show that extreme or very serious
damage would result in the absence of the requested relief. See Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc.
v. Saban Entm't, Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 34 (2d Cir. 1995). Plaintiff's motion is denied for the
following reasons.
B. Analysis
Plaintiff alleges that defendants are denying plaintiff "2 meals a day," in retaliation for
filing grievances. Dkt. No. 18 at 3, 6. As a result, plaintiff is "losing a lot of weight," suffering
a mental health crisis, and his "back pain" is "enhanced." Id.
Plaintiff seeks an order directing defendants: (1) to provide "the appropriate condition
of confinement to the plaintiff to restore his sanity and weight lost;" (2) to arrange for the
plaintiff['s] weight to be checked by a provider; (3) to obtain a "proper evaluation" from the
Office of Mental Health ("OMH"); and (4) to transfer plaintiff to general population or to
"another stepdown program/RRU." Dkt. No. 18 at 1.
"[I]f the plaintiff's accusations of continuing denial of food and medical attention are
true, irreparable harm is satisfied for purposes of this motion." Whitehead v. Departments of
Corr. of City of New York, No. CV-90-2725, 1990 WL 186229, at *1–2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9,
1990) (citation omitted). However, "request[s] for injunctive relief must be supported by
evidence, as opposed to mere allegations, showing that the alleged irreparable harm is
imminent." Hall v. Annucci, No. 19-CV-5521, 2021 WL 4392526, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24,
Case 9:25-cv-01139-ECC-DJS Document 30 Filed 04/07/26 Page 4 of 7

5
2021) (citing inter alia Perkins v. Rock, No. 12-CV-1269, 2013 WL 4781762, at *2 (N.D.N.Y.
Sept. 5, 2013) (noting that a plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief was
appropriately denied where the plaintiff's allegations of harm were "purely speculative" and
unsupported "by any evidence, such as exhibits, medical reports, affidavits from other
inmates, or any other proof")).
Here, plaintiff has not provided proof demonstrating the likelihood of future harm. The
motion lacks any evidentiary support for the claim that plaintiff is being denied two meals a
day, medical or mental health treatment, or any evidence related to his medical condition or
sick call requests for weight loss or back pain. Moreover, plaintiff has not specified when and
how often he was denied meals, medical treatment, or mental health treatment, who denied
plaintiff meals or treatment, or any substantive facts surrounding those incidents.
The Court notes that plaintiff attached exhibits to his motion. See Dkt. No. 18 at 10-
20. However, these documents do not support his claims or requests for relief. Indeed, the
documents contradict his claims. For example, the memoranda from the Program
Management Team indicate that plaintiff exhibited "poor behavior," "refused direct orders
during chow," threw food, obstructed the visibility in his cell, and attempted to assault a staff
member. Dkt. No. 18 at 10, 12. Moreover, while plaintiff provided copies of five grievances,
four of the grievances are unrelated to the issues raised in the motion. See id. at 16-20.
The only document that relates to the issues raised in the motion is a handwritten
grievance, dated October 22, 2025, with complaints that Gardner is denying plaintiff food "1
to 2 times a day." Dkt. No. 18 at 15. This document was not stamped by the facility or
otherwise acknowledged by the facility and contains nothing more than conclusory,
unsupported allegations. Further, the grievance lacks any information related to the date,
Case 9:25-cv-01139-ECC-DJS Document 30 Filed 04/07/26 Page 5 of 7

6
time, and frequency within which plaintiff was denied meals. See Zielinski v. Annucci, No.
9:17-CV-1042 (DNH/TWD), 2020 WL 6866405, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2020) (noting that
the denial of two meals over a span of two and a half weeks, without any accompanying
evidence that these missed meals created an immediate danger to plaintiff's health or well-
being did not present an objectively serious deprivation of a basic human need) (citations
omitted).
Because plaintiff has not provided any documentation, exhibits, or any other evidence
to support his claims, his concerns are "unsubstantiated" and "speculative" and cannot form
the basis for injunctive relief. Louis v. Morley, No. 22-CV-10094., 2024 WL 4573677, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2024) "[The court cannot simply order adequate medical care or
constitutional conditions of confinement, because '[u]nder Rule 65(d), an injunction must be
more specific than a simple command that the defendant obey the law.' " Smith v. Halstead,
No. 7:24-CV-6855, 2024 WL 4389284, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2024) (citation omitted).
Moreover, plaintiff's allegations related to defendants' refusal to "test for cancer" amount to
nothing more than a disagreement over the course of treatment, and cannot form the basis
for a colorable § 1983 claim. See Tolbert v. Koenigsmann, No. 9:13-CV-1577 (LEK/DEP),
2016 WL 3349317, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. June 15, 2016) (denying request for preliminary injunctive
relief based upon the plaintiff's "issues" with the defendants' medical judgment).
"[P]ast allegations of misconduct stated in plaintiff's complaint, standing alone, are
insufficient to support a finding of irreparable harm." Haden v. Hellinger, 2016 WL 589703, at
*1 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2016). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief
(Dkt. No. 18), is denied without prejudice. See Hall, 2021 WL 4392526, at *14 (noting that if
the plaintiff wishes to renew his request for injunctive relief, he should provide the Court with
Case 9:25-cv-01139-ECC-DJS Document 30 Filed 04/07/26 Page 6 of 7

7
medical records, affidavits, or other documentary evidence in support of his theory that the
defendants' actions presented a risk of irreparable harm).1
III. 	CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 18) is DENIED;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules of Practice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2026
1 Plaintiff is free to pursue claims against the individuals responsible for the alleged wrongdoing through
DOCCS’ administrative procedures and, if necessary, by means of a properly filed action.
Case 9:25-cv-01139-ECC-DJS Document 30 Filed 04/07/26 Page 7 of 7