Inmates of Attica Corr. Facility v. Rockefeller - 453 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1971)

Rule:

In seeking preliminary injunctive relief plaintiffs assume the burden of showing probable success on the merits and some irreparable injury or, where the showing of probable success is uncertain, that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in their favor.

Facts:

Plaintiff state inmates, under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, alleged that defendant state officials, since recovery of control over the correctional facility, had abused the inmates and violated their constitutional rights in their interrogations. The district court denied the inmates’ application for preliminary injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint insofar as it sought permanent relief and permission to maintain the suit as a case action on behalf of all inmates. 

Issue:

Was the denial of injunctive relief as to the interrogation claim because there was no substantial evidence of improper questioning proper?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief as to the interrogation claim, because there was no substantial evidence of improper questioning. If a statement was improperly obtained, the inmates had an adequate remedy at law by motion to suppress. Defendants were not required to interrogate the inmates or other inmates only in the presence of their lawyers. The court reversed the orders that denied injunctive relief restraining defendants from subjecting the inmates to physical abuse and that denied the application to proceed with the brutality claim as a class action. The conduct of some defendants was brutal, and measures taken were insufficient to assure against repetition of misconduct.