Judge Phillip Shephard Turns Back Jack Conway's Request For A Temporary Restraining Order Against Kentucky's Early Release Prisoner Program.

Read the Court's order here.

Note: the judge's order denied a temporary injunction. The hearing for an injunction (permanent) is set for "Monday, November 10, 2008 at 9:30 a.m." .

Editor's comment: What do I think will be the outcome?

Well, look at the requirements for the issuance of a restraining order:

CR 65.03 RESTRAINING ORDER

(1) When authorized.

A restraining order may be granted at the commencement of an action, or during the pendency thereof, without written or oral notice to the adverse party or his attorney only if (a) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by verified complaint or affidavit that the applicant's rights are being or will be violated by the adverse party and the applicant will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage before the adverse party or his attorney can be heard in opposition, and (b) the applicant's attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting his claims that notice should not be required.


Now, look at the requirements for the issuance of an restraining order:

CR 65.04 TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

(1) When authorized.

A temporary injunction may be granted during the pendency of an action on motion if it is clearly shown by verified complaint, affidavit, or other evidence that the movant's rights are being or will be violated by an adverse party and the movant will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage pending a final judgment in the action, or the acts of the adverse party will tend to render such final judgment ineffectual.

So, unless Jack Conway can present further evidence, it is clear that the judge will NOT be granting the injunction. This statement from the court provides a clue:

...

The Court further notes that the real parties in interest in this matter are the prisoners and parolees whose time in custody or on supervision will be directly
affected by the ruling of the Court. See CR 17.01. No such person, at this time, has been joined as a party to this action, although the provisions of CR 19.01 may make such a joinder mandatory. In weighing the equities of granting the Attorney General's motion, the Court must consider whether the parties who are most directly affected were given the opportunity to be heard. The Court notes that the Attorney General offered no specific evidence of irreparable injury, other than the general concern that prisoners who benefit from the Corrections Department's interpretation of House Bill 406 may commit crimes upon their early release.

However, the Attorney General's filings also demonstrate that a certain percentage of prisoners will re-offend regardless of the time they are released, and no evidence was offered that there would be any net increase in crime as a result of the Department of Corrections’ interpretation of the budget bill. The Attorney General has offered no authority that this Court has the power to engage in a preventive detention program, no matter how real the concern may be that such prisoners may commit crimes in the future.

I hope you did NOT miss that.