United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
J. Michelson, District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BARBARA D. HOLMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Order entered December 20, 2016 (Docket Entry No. 5), this
prisoner civil rights action was referred 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.
has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order (Docket Entry No. 49), to which Defendants
have responded in opposition. See Docket Entry No.
51. For the reasons set out below, the undersigned Magistrate
Judge respectfully recommends that the motion be denied.
Beasley (“Plaintiff') is an inmate of the Tennessee
Department of Correction (“TDOC”) currently
confined at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution
(“RMSI”) in Nashville, Tennessee. He filed this
lawsuit pro se and in forma pauperis on
November 21, 2016, against several prison officials seeking
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his
constitutional rights alleged to have been committed at the
initial review of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, the Court dismissed
all claims and defendants except for claims of
unconstitutional retaliation brought against former RMSI
Warden Bruce Westbrooks (“Westbrooks”) and RMSI
Correctional Corporal Brandi McClure (“McClure”).
See Memorandum and Order entered December 20, 2016
(Docket Entry Nos. 5 & 6). Plaintiff alleges that, on or
about July 15, 2016, Defendant Westbrooks directed that he be
taken to segregation after a verbal altercation occurred with
Westbrooks about writing on Plaintiff's cell door.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant McClure retaliated against
him by issuing him a disciplinary infraction for defiance
after he complained to McClure about his prison grievances
not being processed. Defendants have answered the Complaint
and a scheduling order has been entered. See Docket
Entry Nos. 27 and 28. Both Defendants have filed dispositive
motions which are pending before the Court. See
Defendant Westbrooks' motion for judgment on the
pleadings (Docket Entry No. 32) and Defendant McClure's
motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 42).
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE
motion, Plaintiff complains about recent events at the RMSI:
his cell has been searched and documents have been stolen;
his mail has not been sent out or delivered to him; he has
had problems having copies made by prison staff; he has been
having limited access to legal materials, legal assistants,
and the RMSI law library; and he has been issued a
disciplinary report. He contends that these actions are
examples of an effort by prison officials to purposeful
hinder his ability to litigate this lawsuit and to respond to
Defendants' pending motions. Plaintiff implicates
Defendants' counsel in the events, contending that she
directed prison officials to not return to him documents that
had been sent for copying. Plaintiff asserts that he has
suffered stress and depression because of “all of the
threats, harassment, and intimidation that has arisen
pertaining to [the lawsuit].” See Docket Entry
No. 49 at 5. Plaintiff seeks an order directing
Defendants' counsel and seven RMSI officials, and
“all others” acting in concert with these
individuals, from harassing, threatening, intimidating, and
hindering his pursuit of this lawsuit and his legal claims.
Id. at 6.
have filed a response opposing the motion, contending that
the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the individuals
sought to be enjoined and that Plaintiff has not established
the elements necessary to grant a temporary restraining order
or preliminary injunction. See Docket Entry No. 51.
Through her affidavit, Charlotte Davis, counsel of record for
Defendants, testifies that she has never directed anyone to
steal Plaintiff's documents, but, in fact, she attempted
to assist Plaintiff in the process of having documents copied
at the RMSI. See Docket Entry No. 52.
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
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). Under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish
that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely
to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and
that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v.
Nat'l Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20,
129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008).
motion for preliminary injunctive relief should be denied.
Initially, the undersigned notes that the requested relief is
unrelated to the two narrow claims at issue in this action. A
basic showing necessary for obtaining a preliminary
injunction is that there must be some relationship between
the conduct giving rise to the claims in the complaint and
the injury sought to be prevented by the motion for
preliminary injunctive relief. See Colvin v. Caruso,
605 F.3d 282, 299-300 (6th Cir. 2010). This link is lacking.
Additionally, injunctive relief generally cannot be directed
at individuals who are not defendants in the present action.
See In re N.A.A.C.P., 849 F.2d 1473 (Table), 1988 WL
61504 at *3 (6th Cir. June 13, 1988) (noting that a
court's decree is generally only binding on parties).
Plaintiff has not met his burden for preliminary injunctive
relief he seeks. He has not shown a strong or substantial
likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. He has
also not shown that he will suffer irreparable harm if the
injunctive relief requested is not granted. The record
clearly demonstrates that Plaintiff has been able to make
multiple filings in the action and has been able to
adequately prosecute his claims. The Court, by separate
order, has also extended additional time to Plaintiff to
respond to Defendants' pending motions. See
Docket Entry No. 55. The balancing of harms required by the
third factor does not weigh in favor of the requested relief,
and Plaintiff has not persuasively demonstrated that a public
interest would be advanced by the requested relief as is
required for the fourth factor. National Hockey League
Players Ass'n v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey Club, 372
F.3d 712, 720 n.4 (6th Cir. 2003). Further still, absent
extraordinary and urgently compelling reasons, the Court will
not intervene in matters such as the day-to-day operations in
a correctional facility. See Kendrick v. Bland, 740
F.2d 432, 438, n. 3 (6th Cir. 1984). Such reasons have not
been shown by Plaintiff.