United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
MAXWELL M. HODGE, III
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BARBARA D. HOLMES United States Magistrate Judge.
Order entered September 15, 2016 (Docket Entry No. 3), the
Court referred this pro se and in forma
pauperis prisoner civil rights action to the Magistrate
Judge for pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§
636(b)(1)(A) and (B), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Court.
M. Hodge, III (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate confined
at the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center
(“TTCC”) in Hartsville, Tennessee. He sues
Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his
constitutional rights are being violated at the TTCC.
Specifically, he alleges that he should not be housed at the
TTCC, that TTCC staff are retaliating against him because of
prison grievances that he files, that medical staff have
either not given him his prescribed medications or given the
medications to him in an untimely matter, that he has been
wrongly housed in “lock down, ” and that he has
endured poor living conditions. See Complaint
(Docket Entry No. 1) at 6-8. The five Defendants have
answered the complaint and a scheduling order has been
pending is a motion filed by Plaintiff in which he requests
preliminary injunctive relief related to his confinement at
the TTCC. See Docket Entry No. 56. He complains that
it was extremely cold in the inmate cells at the TTCC from
January 5-8, 2017 and that prison officials did nothing to
remedy the issue. He requests the Court enter an order
directing prison officials to turn on the heat and fix the
exhaust vents and an order for a federal liaison to be
appointed. Defendants have filed a response in opposition to
the motions, essentially disputing the allegations of extreme
conditions made by Plaintiff. See Docket Entry Nos.
61 and 62.
motion should be denied. Preliminary injunctions are governed
by Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and are
considered preventive, prohibitory, or protective measures
taken pending resolution on the merits. See Clemons v.
Board of Educ., 228 F.2d 853, 856 (6th Cir. 1956).
Preliminary injunctions are considered extraordinary relief.
Detroit Newspaper Publishers Ass'n v. Detroit
Typographical Union No. 18, Int'l Typographical
Union, 471 F.2d 872, 876 (6th Cir. 1972). Plaintiff, as
the moving party, has the burden of proving that the
circumstances “clearly demand” a preliminary
injunction. Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty.
Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). However,
Plaintiff has not supported his motion with any type of
affirmative evidence and has not met this burden.
Plaintiff has not shown that any factors weigh in favor of
his requests for a preliminary injunction. See Granny
Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 441, 94
S.Ct. 1113, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974). McNeilly v. Land,
684 F.3d 611, 615 (6th Cir. 2012); Leary v.
Daeschner, 228 F.3d. 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000); Six
Clinics Holding Corp., II v. CAFCOMP Systems, 119 F.3d
393, 401 (6th Cir. 1997) Parker v. U.S. Dep't of
Agric. 879 F.2d. 1362, 1367 (6th Cir. 1989); Mason
Cnty Med. Assocs. v. Knebel, 563 F.2d 256, 261 (6th Cir.
1977). At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff's
likelihood of success on his claims is no greater than that
of Defendants. Plaintiff has also not shown that he will
suffer irreparable harm if the injunctive relief he requests
is not granted and has not shown that a public interest would
be advanced by the requested relief See National Hockey
League Players Ass'n v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey
Club, 372 F.3d 712, 720 n.4 (6th Cir. 2003). Absent
extraordinary and urgently compelling reasons, the Court will
not intervene in matters such as the day-to-day operations in
a correctional facility. Although Plaintiff makes complaints
about issues that are not insignificant, he simply has not
shown extraordinary and urgently compelling reasons
justifying the relief he seeks.
on the foregoing, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS
that Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket
Entry No. 56) be DENIED.
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of service
of this Report and Recommendation and must state with
particularity the specific portions of this Report and
Recommendation to which objection is made. Failure to file
written objections within the specified time can be deemed a
waiver of the right to appeal the District Court's Order
regarding the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985);
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.
Plaintiff also filed two previous
motions for injunctions (Docket Nos. 46 and 47), which were
addressed in a separate Report and Recommendation made to the
Honorable Aleta A. Trauger, District Judge, ...