United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
BRYSON WOODS, Plaintiff.
BONNIE HOMMRICH, in her official Capacity as the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, and WILLIAM HASLAM, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Tennessee, Defendants.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, Bryson Woods
(“Plaintiff”) has moved this Court for a
temporary restraining order and/or an order preliminarily
enjoining the Defendants from returning him to the Gateway to
Independence Youth Development Center. In support of his
Motion, Plaintiff has provided facts through a Verified
Complaint and a separate Affidavit.
Verified Complaint and Affidavit establish the following
Tennessee Department of Children's Services
(“DCS”) operates the Gateway to Independence
(“GTI”) Youth Development Center as a hardware
secure placement for children adjudicated delinquent and
placed in its custody.
has placed Bryson Woods at DCS for several months.
While at GTI, Mr. Woods alleges that the following has
a. He has been attacked multiple times by others housed at
b. He has requested ‘protective custody' to protect
himself against further attacks.
c. ‘Protective custody' involves isolation of youth
from other youth to protect them from other dangerous youth.
d. Multiple children have been hospitalized following
violence at the facility.
e. On April 9, 2018, a riot broke out at the facility. Youth,
staff and teachers were injured. At least one youth escaped
f. Also on April 9, 2018, Bryson Woods attempted suicide.
Plaintiff raises claims for violations of his Fourteenth
Amendment substantive due process rights, his right to be
free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth
Amendment, and for violations of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
determining whether to issue a TRO pursuant to Rule 65 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court is to consider:
(1) the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) whether the plaintiff may suffer irreparable harm absent
the injunction; (3) whether granting the injunction will
cause substantial harm to others; and (4) the impact of the