United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Order entered December 20, 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.
Matthews (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate confined at
the South Central Correctional Facility (“SCCF”)
in Clifton, Tennessee. He sues five Defendants under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his constitutional rights
are being violated at the SCCF. Specifically, he alleges that
he has been denied constitutionally adequate medical
care. Two of the five Defendants have filed an
answer and three of the Defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss that is currently pending.
pending are Plaintiff's motions for orders requiring that
he be transferred from the SCCF. See Docket Entry
Nos. 26 and 27. He contends that a conflict of interest
exists because he is confined under the supervision of prison
officials at the SCCF whom he has sued in this action. He
also contends that Defendants have retaliated against him by
continuing to hold him in protective confinement in poor
conditions, limiting his access to prison programs and legal
assistance. He supports his motions with his own affidavits.
See Docket Entry Nos. 28 and 29.
relief Plaintiff requests is in the nature of a mandatory
injunction- that is, the relief “would alter, rather
than preserve, the status quo by commanding some positive
act.” Glauser-Nagy v. Medical Mut. of Ohio,
987 F.Supp.1002, 1010 (N.D. Ohio 1997) (citations omitted).
Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions 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), and
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.
has not met this burden, and his motions should be denied.
Plaintiff has not shown that any factors weigh in favor of
his requests to be transferred. 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 of a correctional facility
and the location of a prison inmate's housing. No such
reasons have been shown by Plaintiff.
on the foregoing, the undersigned Magistrate Judge
respectfully RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs motions to be
transferred (Docket Entry Nos. 26 and 27) 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.
BARBARA D. HOLMES United States Magistrate Judge
 Although Plaintiff made other
allegations in his complaint, his claims based upon these
allegations were dismissed upon initial review under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Se ...