UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT of MASSACHUSETTS

KEITH L. PHILLIPS, PRO SE PLAINTIFF,

v.

) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO# _

MARK A. CONRAD, ET AL DEFENDANTS.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Upon the supporting Affidavit of the Plaintiff and the accompanying Memorandum of law, it is

ORDERED that Defendant Mark A. Conrad show cause in room of the United States

---

Courthouse, at 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210, on the day of ____;> 2010, at

_____ o'clock, why a Preliminary Injunction should not be issued pursuant to Rule 65 (a), Fed. R.

Civ. P., enjoining the said Defendant, his successors in office, agents and employees and all other persons

acting in concert and participation with them to immediately:

a) Cease and desist from publishing, sharing or disseminating the Plaintiff's offense information with all

public, state, local and Federal agencies until conclusion of this action;

b) Expunge and/or seal and amend the Plaintiff's parole file of both statue and language ofM.G.L.c. 265

§ l3 B and the word "child" wherever found within said file;

c) Provide completion notice and details to both the Court and the Plaintiff;

d) Send "notice of amendment / correction" to all reciprocal data feeds, inclusive ofInterstate Compact,

South Carolina and Georgia and the FBI;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that effective immediately after the Hearing and determination of this Order to show cause. Defendant Mark A. Conrad. et ai, shall seat the Plaintiff for a Parole Hearing within 30 days;

IT IS FURTIffiR ORDERED, that upon seating the Plaintiff for a Parole Hearing, Defendants are hereby barred from using against the Plaintiff any information having taken place before the Commencement of this action or previously used against him;

IT IS FURTIffiR ORDERED. that this order to show cause, and all other papers attached to this

Application, shall be served on Defendant Mark A. Conrad, et al, by _

2010 and the United States Marshals Service is hereby directed to effectuate such service.

United States District Judge

Dated _

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT of MASSACHUSETTS

v.

) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO# _

KEITH L. PHILLIPS, PRO SE PLAINTIFF,

MARK A. CONRAD, ET AL DEFENDANTS.

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

This is an action stemming from various constitutional violations brought pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983

by a state prisoner.

STATEMENT OF FACTS (BEFORE 2009)

As stated in the Declaration submitted with this Motion, the Defendants are illegally and knowingly using

a manufactured conviction of child molestation against the Plaintiff.

From May of 2000 to the latter half of 2002 the Plaintiff continuously requested the false entry to be

corrected by the Defendants. In the fall of 2002, Defendants, in an official response, admitted to using the

word "child" instead of "person" and had "amended" the "records ... "

Plaintiff informed the Defendants that they needed to "excise the entire Parole file" of the word "child".

Defendants did not amend the entire Parole file, just the "Records of Decision." On 02/28/03 Plaintiff

was released on Parole.

STATEMENT OF FACTS (2009 UNTll.L PRESENT)

On October s", 2009, nearly 8 years later, the Defendants held a Final Revocation Hearing ("Hearing")

for the Plaintiff's 2003 Parole permit. At the Hearing, the Plaintiffs 5 month pregnant spouse was

erroneously informed in a very cruel manner by Defendants that the Plaintiff was convicted of child

molestation. On Appeal, the Defendants were once again informed that the Plaintiff is not convicted of a

crime against a child. Defendants "denied" Plaintiffs Appeal citing "no merit."

ARGUMENT

To succeed on application for Preliminary Injunction a party must establish through the common standard

that such a need does exist. Reaching the standard is accomplished by a weighing of elements. See

Mullen v. Surtshin, 590 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (N.D. Cal. 2008)

The Court in Mullen stated supra,

[T]he traditional test requires the movant to : (1) establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2)

show the possibility of irreparable injury to the Plaintiff if preliminary relief is not granted; (3) show a

balance of hardship favoring the movant's; and (4) show that granting the injunction favors the public

interest.

As fully demonstrated below, the Plaintiff's requested Injunction satisfies each of the requisite criteria.

1. Plaintiff Has a Strong Likelihood of Success on The Merits

This action is based on established facts beyond any elements of dispute. The Defendants have already

admitted to engaging in the unlawful conduct alleged by the Plaintiff, prior to the commencement of this

action. Indeed success is most certain in that the Defendants can neither dispute their previous admission

or proffer a defense to justify their unlawful conduct.

II. Without A Preliminary Injunction The Plaintiff Will Continue To Suffer Irreparable Harm.

1) Without the Court's immediate intervention the Defendants' will continue to transmit, publish and share with other agencies, contractors, organizations and the World Wide Web the manufactured conviction of a child molestation, that unfairly portrays the Plaintiff as a person who sexually preys on children.

2) The Plaintiff cannot get a fair and impartial Hearing because of Defendants' refuse to address the manufactured conviction of child molestation. Thus, with each passing day, the Plaintiff is unable to pursue the wrongful revocation of his liberty.

Hence time is of essence.

3) On March 4th 2010 the Plaintiff's souse gave birth to their only child and Plaintiff has real concerns for this family being wrongly discriminated against, very much in the same manner the Plaintiff is suffering irreparable harm.

III. The Balance of Harm Clearly Weighs in Plaintiff's Favor: The Plaintiff merely seeks to have the Defendants perform their sworn duties.

When Plaintiff has demonstrated that the failure to issue the injunction will subject him to a substantial risk of irreparable harm, the Court must balance the risk against any similar risk which granting the injunction would create for the Defendants. See, Mitchell v. Cuomo, 748 F .2d, at 808 (holding that dangers posed by prison crowding outweighed state's financial and administrative concerns).

In the case at bar, the Plaintiff has unquestionably demonstrated a substantial risk of irreparable harm. As for the harm that may be created for the Defendants, none exists. Defendants would only be performing the duties of which they have taken an oath to perform, instead of continuing to act indifferent and above judicial review.

IV. Granting the Plaintiff s Preliminary Injunction serves the Public Interest

Simply put, it is in the public's interest that public officials adhere to the law. Defendants are not just running afoul of the Plaintiff's rights, but are at this moment violating United States Code Title I8,Section 495 which provides [W]hoever falsely makes, alter, forges .... any public record ....

Whoever alters or publishes as true or possesses with intent to alter as true, any such false, forged, altered .... writing knowing the same to be false ... altered .... or

Whoever transmits to, or presents to any office or to any officer of the United States [F.B.I.] any such false, ... altered writing, knowing the same to be false ... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. [Brackets added.]

And, Section 1519 of same title states, [W]hoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence ... proper administration [Parole Hearing] ... Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years or both. [Brackets added].

The Plaintiff should not be required to Post Security. Usually, a litigant who obtains Interim Injunction relief is asked to post security. Role 65 (c), Fed. R. Civ. P. However, the Plaintiff is an indigent prisoner and is unable to post security. The Court has discretion to excuse and impoverished litigant from posting security.

Orantes-Hemandezv. Smith, 541 F. Supp. 351, 385 n.30 (C.D. Cal. 1982). In view of the serious harm confronting the Plaintiff the Court should grant the relief requested without requiring the posting of security.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the motion in its entirety.

Dated: _

Keith L. Phillips #CSS874 P.O. BOX 466

Gardner, MA 01440

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT of MASSACHUSETTS

KEITH L. PHILLIPS, PRO SE PLAINTIFF,

v.

) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO# _

MARK A. CONRAD, ET AL DEFENDANTS.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Now comes the Plaintiff, Keith L. Phillips, Pro Se and hereby moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 (2) for

an Order enjoining Defendant Mark A. Conrad et al, during the pendency of this action from engaging in

unlawful conduct alleged in his complaint.

In further support of this Motion, Plaintiff relies on the Declaration attached hereto and submitted here

with, and Plaintiff's Memorandum in support of his Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue a Preliminary Injunction as set forth on

the attached Order to show cause and Temporary Restraining Order.

Dated:

----------------------

Keith L. Phillips #C55874 P.O. BOX 466

Gardner, MA 01440

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT of MASSACHUSETTS

v.

) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO#

-----

KEITH L. PHll.,LIPS, PRO SE PLAINTIFF,

MARK A. CONRAD, ET AL DEFENDANTS.

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND PRELIMINARY IN.nJCTION

Keith L. Phillips declares under penalty of perjury:

1. I am the Plaintiff in this case. I make this Declaration in support of my Motion for a Temporary

Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction to ensure that Defendants' unlawful activities are ceased

and desisted.

2. As set forth in the verified complaint in this case, Defendants were made aware by me that my conviction

for indecent assault and battery on a person fourteen or older M. G. L. c 265 § 13H, was being

erroneously described as "indecent assault and battery on a child of fourteen," (henceforth, the

"alteration"). See Exhibit I, Record of Decision.

3. This alteration would and continues to mislead authorities and the general public that I am convicted of

child molestation. From the period of 2000 to 2002 I sent the Defendants multiple correspondences

requesting the alteration be addressed and spoke with several Defendants on numerous occasions

regarding same.

4. In the fall of2002 the Parole Board sent me a letter that in essence stated that the Parole Board acknowledged that they had been using the word "child" instead of "person" in its description of my M. G. L. c. 265 § 13 H conviction and had "amended" the "Records of Decision". See Exhibit 2, Letter from the Massachusetts Parole Board.

5. I immediately responded by explaining to Defendants that by amending "Records of Decision" no one would ever see except other board members, was an exercise in inutility and that all the "Parole Files" needed to be "excised" of the word "child". See Exhibit 3, Letter to the Parole Board.

6. The Defendants knowingly chose not to purge and amend my complete Parole file and subsequently, I was released on Parole some 2 months later (02/23/03) with the alteration unresolved.

7. On August 5th 2009, I was stopped and arrested for driving without proof of insurance. The same day I was bailed out, before my fugitive* status was discovered.

8. On August 6th 2009, I turned myself into the arresting officer from the preceding day, and by September 2009 I was in the custody of Massachusetts Corrections at MCI Cedar Junction.

9. On October 8th 2009 the Parole Board conducted my Final Revocation Hearing ("Hearing") to revoke my 2003 Parole Permit.

10. My wife was allowed to provide testimony and flew up from our condominium in Charleston, South Carolina. We have been together in the same subdivision since June 2004. Thus, she could speak on my activities. My wife was also 5 months pregnant with our fITSt child - who was born March 4th 2010.

11. As part of the Proceeding, my wife was bought into the Hearing and asked by Defendants was she aware I was "convicted of indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen." See Exhibit 4, attached hereto as "Affidavit - Iulia A. Phillips".

*Note: The Massachusetts Parole Board had issued a Warrant/or "whereabouts unknown ",

12. I received my Parole file around the 23rd of October 2009 from my then attorney. Once I began to peruse

through the file, I noticed that my offense description was incorrect as well as the statue. I then

remembered the "alteration" and the entire ordeal, and I also realized that the alteration had evolved from

altered wording to a stand-alone conviction for M.G.L. c. 265 § 13B "indecent assault and battery on a

child under fourteen."

B. On Appeal to the full Parole Board I laid the issue bare for the Defendants to see that they have

manufactured a false conviction of child molestation and have used it against me and have recklessly

informed my wife of the same, as well as the world at large. Defendants "denied" my Appeal citing "no-

merit." See Exhibit 5, Full Parole Board Letter of Denial.

14. I am unable to prevent the usage, publication and the stigmatizing effects a charge like child molestation

induces; nor am I able to pursue my liberty through the Parole process because I cannot get a fair Hearing,

because the Parole Board deems the issue to possess "no merit".

15. I did not "plea agree" to my convictions. I abhor being convicted of the sex offense I am committed

under. Yet, it is doubly agonizing to continuously fight against and live with a manufactured conviction

of child molestation in addition.

16. For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum of law filed with this Motion, the Plaintiff should be

allowed a Temporary Restraining Order requiring the Defendants to follow the terms of the issued Order

and to a Preliminary Injunction to keep in place the terms of the Order.

17. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the Plaintiff's Motion in all respects.

Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated:

------------------------

Keith L. Phillips #C55874 P.O. BOX 466

Gardner, MA 01440