The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge:
Before the Court is an application for a preliminary injunction
filed on behalf of Juan Ramon Matta-Ballesteros, a detainee at
the United States Penitentiary, Marion, Illinois, which is
located within this district. Matta has filed a petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He also requests
that the Bureau of Prisons be enjoined from transferring him from
the Marion facility pending the resolution of his habeas
petition, claiming that a failure to do so will require Matta to
litigate the issues raised in a number of different jurisdictions
where he is subject to prosecution.
In his habeas petition, Matta, a resident of Honduras,
challenges the legality of his custody, and claims that he was
illegally and unconstitutionally kidnapped from his home in
Tegucigalpa, Honduras. The petitioner alleges that, among others,
agents of the United States directed and participated in his
forcible removal to the United States, and that Matta was
tortured by his captors enroute to this country. Matta asks the
Court to order his release.
1. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the United States
Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois.
2. Petitioner in 1971, was incarcerated at the United States
Prison Camp at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida where he was serving
a sentence for violating the United States' passport laws.
Petitioner did not complete service of that sentence.
3. Petitioner was removed from his home in Honduras, and
transported to the United States against his will in early April,
4. Petitioner faces charges under five separate indictments in
four different federal districts throughout the United States;
four of the indictments involve drug-related offenses, and the
fifth is for his alleged escape from imprisonment at Eglin.
5. Petitioner has retained attorneys in New York, Los Angeles,
and Miami, as well as in the Southern District of Illinois.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD
The key case in this circuit on the standard for injunctive
relief is Roland Machinery Co. v. Dresser Industries, Inc.,
749 F.2d 380 (7th Cir. 1984). While there are more recent cases, i.e.
American Hospital Supply v. Hospital Products, Inc., 780 F.2d 589
(7th Cir. 1986) and Lawson Products, Inc. v. Avnet, Inc.,
782 F.2d 1429 (7th Cir. 1986), Roland Machinery acts as the
foundation upon which these cases build their decisions.
For a petitioner to be entitled to a preliminary injunction, he
must show five things: (1) that he has no adequate remedy at law,
(2) that he will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is
denied, (3) that the harm potentially suffered by the petitioner
if the injunction does not issue is greater than the harm the
respondent will suffer if the injunction is granted, (4) that the
petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits,
and (5) that the injunction will
not harm the public interest. Roland Machinery.
LACK OF ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW
It is apparent Matta is seeking to enjoin his transfer from
this district pending the resolution of his habeas petition,
because it would be logistically and financially burdensome to
pursue his claim in each federal district in which he faces an
indictment. This concern notwithstanding, Matta failed to show
that he lacks an adequate remedy at law. In fact, each district
court in which an indictment is pending provides petitioner with
a forum in which to redress his grievance as to each indictment.
Moreover, these courts provide potentially adequate remedies in
that they have the jurisdiction to dismiss the indictment before
them. The fact that this Court is more convenient to act as a
sort of "clearinghouse" for the petitioner's claims does not make