Gulley v. Ogando
3:19-cv-00612
D. Conn.Apr 13, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Chaz Gulley is a state inmate who pleaded guilty in 2012 to first‑degree assault and attempted first‑degree armed robbery and is serving a sentence that ends May 18, 2020.
- On March 26, 2020, Gulley filed identical motions in four pending § 1983 cases seeking immediate release from prison due to the risk of contracting COVID‑19.
- Gulley’s underlying § 1983 complaints allege excessive force, deliberate indifference, and retaliation by correctional staff—claims unrelated to his request for release.
- Defendants objected, arguing that release sought in a § 1983 action is improper and that they lack authority to release him; the Commissioner of Correction was not a party and had not been served.
- The court denied the motions, holding Gulley cannot obtain release via § 1983 and, even on the merits, he failed to satisfy the standard for a mandatory preliminary injunction.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper vehicle for release | Gulley sought immediate release in his § 1983 suits due to COVID risk | Release from custody must be sought by habeas; § 1983 cannot shorten confinement | Denied — Preiser bars seeking release via § 1983; habeas is the proper remedy |
| Preliminary injunction standard | COVID‑19 risk causes irreparable harm warranting a mandatory injunction for release | Movant must show irreparable harm plus likelihood of success; mandatory injunction requires clear likelihood; injury must relate to the complaint | Denied — failed mandatory injunction standard; asserted injury unrelated to the § 1983 claims |
| Ability to provide relief / personal jurisdiction | Commissioner (allegedly) has authority to discharge inmates, so relief is feasible | Defendants lack authority to release Gulley; the Commissioner is not a defendant and not served, so no personal jurisdiction | Denied — defendants cannot effect release; court lacks jurisdiction over the Commissioner |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (state prisoner seeking immediate release must pursue habeas, not § 1983)
- Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008) (preliminary injection standards; mandatory injunctions require a clear likelihood of success)
- Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470 (8th Cir. 1994) (purpose of preliminary injunction is to prevent irreparable harm pending adjudication)
- Murphy v. Travis, [citation="36 F. App'x 679"] (2d Cir. 2002) (§ 1983 request for injunctive relief releasing a prisoner is tantamount to habeas and barred)