Tony Tremayne Lewis v. Jeff Zmuda, et al.

Lewis v. Zmuda · United States District Court for the District of Kansas · January 26, 2026 · No. 25-3271-JWL

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Plaintiff Tony Tremayne Lewis’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action concerning prison conditions, transfer, access to legal materials, television use, and filing procedures. The court granted his motion for an extension of time to provide a corrected six-month account statement and maintained the initial partial filing fee assessment unless the statement was timely provided.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff was not entitled to a preliminary injunction because he failed to make the heightened showing required for a mandatory injunction, including a clear and unequivocal likelihood of success and certain, non-theoretical irreparable harm.
  2. Plaintiff was granted an extension until February 12, 2026, to provide an account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff established entitlement to a preliminary injunction requiring prison officials to transfer him, permit television use, and process pro se filings within specified deadlines.
  2. Whether Plaintiff should receive an extension of time to submit a six-month account statement for the period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (8)

  • Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 356 F.3d 1256, 1260 (10th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)(followed)
  • Schrier v. University of Colorado, 427 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Adrian v. Westar Energy, Inc., No. 11-1265-KHV, 2011 WL 6026148, at *3 (D. Kan. 2011)(followed)
  • Heideman v. South Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1189 (10th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • State of Connecticut v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660, 674 (1931)(followed)
  • Porro v. Barnes, 624 F.3d 1322, 1329 (10th Cir. 2010)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…