The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
On September 17, 2010, plaintiff Jeremy Pinson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971). On August 15, 2011, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), which names nine defendants -- the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") and various BOP employees.
The FAC asserts a single claim: that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to plaintiff's safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. FAC at 5. According to plaintiff, on April 9, 2008 -- while he was incarcerated at United States Penitentiary Victorville ("USP Victorville") -- he was attacked by five inmates armed with shanks. Id. at 11. Plaintiff sustained severe injuries, including stab wounds and broken bones. Id. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have failed to take steps to protect him from other inmates despite a known threat to plaintiff. Id. at 9-12.
On October 4, 2011, plaintiff -- who is currently housed at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility ("ADX") in Florence, Colorado (see FAC at 2) -- filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("Motion"). Plaintiff seeks to:
(1) enjoin BOP from housing plaintiff in any cell, unit, or prison where plaintiff would have physical contact with known members or associates of the Mexican Mafia, Aryan Brotherhood, Sureno, or Dirty White Boys gang; (2) have BOP determine whether to house plaintiff in the Witness Security Program, a "Lesser Security Prison," or State Prison; and (3) have BOP review existing policies and procedures regarding housing members of gangs in the general population of agency facilities, and determine whether such housing increases violent incidents among inmates. Mot. at 3-4.
On October 25, 2011, plaintiff filed what he called a Motion to Supplement Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("Supplemental Motion"). On November 3, 2011, the served defendants filed an Opposition to plaintiff's Motion. On November 21, 2011, plaintiff filed a reply in support of his Motion, and a Motion for Leave to Present Oral Testimony ("Oral Testimony Motion") in support of his Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with defendants that plaintiff has failed to make a clear showing that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction. Further, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Department of Justice's Criminal Division's Office of Enforcement Operations ("OEO") to grant part of plaintiff's desired relief. Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion is denied.
ALLEGATIONS OF THE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Because the Motion is sealed, the Court recounts only certain aspects of its pertinent allegations. Plaintiff was convicted in federal court and sentenced to 252 months in prison. Mot., Declaration of Jeremy Pinson ("Pinson Decl.") ¶ 1. The leaders of the Mexican Mafia and Aryan Brotherhood have issued a $50,000 contract to murder plaintiff. See Mot. at 1; Mot., Pinson Decl. ¶ 3; Suppl. Mot., Pinson Decl. ¶ 4. While incarcerated at USP Victorville, plaintiff was assaulted and sustained stab wounds and broken bones. Mot. at 1; FAC at 11. Plaintiff is in continued danger of being injured or killed by the Mexican Mafia, Aryan Brotherhood, Sureno, and Dirty White Boys gangs. See Mot. at 1, 3. "As long as it is possible for the gangs that have a contract on [plaintiff's] life to eventually obtain contact with [him], [he] remain[s] in danger of being injured or killed." Mot., Pinson Decl. ¶ 5.
On February 25, 2011, plaintiff was transferred to the ADX and initially housed in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU"). Suppl. Mot., Pinson Decl. ¶ 1. Shortly after plaintiff's arrival at the ADX, inmates began mass producing letters to other inmates notifying them of the contract by the Mexican Mafia and Aryan Brotherhood for plaintiff's murder. Id. ¶ 4. The letters were distributed throughout the SHU. Id. On June 1, 2011, plaintiff was moved from the SHU to General Population Units, D Unit. Id. ¶ 6. After plaintiff arrived at D Unit, an inmate began informing other inmates of the contract for plaintiff's murder and that plaintiff is a "snitch." Id. ¶ 7. The letters about plaintiff were distributed throughout the unit. Id. ¶ 8. ...