United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Cookeville Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BROWN, United States Magistrate Judge
THE HONORABLE KEVIN H. SHARP
reasons stated below the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Plaintiff's motion for a restraining order (Docket Entry
17) be denied and that any appeal from the denial of this
motion not be certified as taken in good faith.
Plaintiff has filed a complaint against Lt. Phil Arms (Docket
Entry 1) in his individual capacity in which he alleges that
Arms, while an officer in the Putnam County Sheriff's
Office, assaulted him and used excessive force while the
Plaintiff was in handcuffs and complying with verbal
commands. He alleges that he was choked and his head was
slammed into a brick wall by the Defendant on June 24, 2016.
He alleges that the Defendant strangled him for about 15 to
20 seconds causing him to almost lose consciousness and then
slammed his head into a concrete wall causing a large knot
the size of an egg on his forehead. He alleges that all this
occurred while his hands were cuffed behind his back and that
even though he made insulting comments to the Defendant, he
did not do anything to justify such a use of force.
Plaintiff was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis
and the case was referred to me for case management and a
report and recommendation on any dispositive motion (Docket
motion the Plaintiff alleges that since the incident he
complained of the Defendant has made several threats against
his life and that he is in fear for his life and safety.
Because of this he requests an order requiring him to be
moved to another facility. He states that he has been singled
out and threatened with lock down and loss of privileges for
no reason and that they are enforcing rules against him that
do not even exist. He believes that things are being done by
the Defendant and other correction officers to make his
living conditions harder.
their response (Docket Entry 23) the Defendant points out
that the Plaintiff is currently awaiting sentencing and until
he is sentenced he is not eligible to be transferred to a
facility operated by the Tennessee Department of Corrections
absent exceptional circumstances. They specifically denied
that he has been singled out and threatened or that he has
been on lock down with the loss of privileges. They state
that Mr. Nashville, the Administrator for the Putnam County
Jail, has conferred with the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff
has agreed not to create a problem. Provided the Plaintiff
does not create a problem they state that no disciplinary
action will be taken against him. They further state that as
of the date of the response he has not created any problems
and no disciplinary action has been taken against him. In
support of this response they attach the affidavit of Mr.
Nash, which supports the statement in their response (Docket
Entry 23-1). Also attached as Docket Entry 23-2 is an
affidavit from the Defendant that states he has not been in
contact with the Plaintiff since August 3, 2016, and that he
denies making any threats to harm the Plaintiff in any way.
Defendant has filed an answer. The Defendant has also filed a
response to the motion for a temporary restraining order
(TRO) (Docket Entry 23) and the matter is ready for
determining whether to issue a TRO or preliminary injunction
the Court must balance the following factors: (1) whether the
movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2)
whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without
the injunction; (3) whether the issuance of the injunction
would cause substantial harm to others; or (4) whether the
public interest would be served by the issuance of the
injunction. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum, Inc. v.
Gentile products, 134 F.3d 749, 753 (6th Cir.
Supreme Court has long ago held that courts should defer to
the informed discretion of prison administrators because of
the realities of running a correctional institute are complex
and difficult and that courts are ill-equipped to deal with
these problems and the management of these facilities is
confined to the executive and legislative branches, not to
the judicial branch. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,
case, the Plaintiff has not presented any concrete evidence
that the Defendant has taken any action against him since the
alleged incident. The Plaintiff's subjective fear of
future retaliations is simply ...