United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
DYLAN C. BOWERS
Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., Chief District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BARBARA D. HOLMES United States Magistrate Judge
Order entered April 16, 2018 (Docket Entry No. 15), 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.
Bowers (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate confined at the
Metro-Davidson County Detention Facility (“Detention
Facility”) in Nashville, Tennessee. In this lawsuit, he
sues Detention Facility Warden Blair Leibach
(“Leibach”) for damages under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff alleges that Leibach violated his
constitutional rights by retaliating against him for pursuing
prison grievances at the Detention Facility. Specifically, he
alleges that Leibach threatened him and temporarily suspended
his grievance privileges. See Docket Entry No. 14 at
9-10. Process was issued to Leibach, who has recently
answered the complaint. See Docket Entry No.
pending is Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction. See Docket Entry No. 17. Plaintiff
complains about the living conditions in Unit Juliet, which
is his housing unit at the Detention Facility. He alleges
that the conditions are unnecessarily harsh, unfair, and
violate his and other inmates' constitutional rights.
Id. He seeks the unspecified intervention of the
Court, presumably to stop the manner in which inmates in the
Unit Juliet are being treated. Attached to his motion is: (1)
a narrative of his allegations; (2) a list of 12 inmates who
will be witnesses in support of a preliminary injunction;
and, (3) a copy of an internal policy memorandum concerning
chapel services for inmates in the housing unit. Id.
Leibach has filed a response opposing the motion.
See Response in Opposition (Docket Entry No. 21).
Leibach denies the allegation that any inmates in Unit Juliet
are being treated in a manner that violates their
constitutional rights and contends that: (1) Plaintiff has
not supported his motion with an affidavit or any supporting
evidence and (2) Plaintiff has not established the elements
necessary to grant a preliminary injunction. Defendant
Leibach supports his response with the affidavit of Darrell
Jones, a Unit Manager at the Detention Facility. See
Docket Entry No. 22.
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 is appropriately
denied. Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not
made a request for any type of specific relief. Further, his
motion is unrelated to the narrow claim that is 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 claim 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). That link
is lacking here.
Plaintiff has not met his burden for the entry of a
preliminary injunction. He has not shown a strong or
substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim.
He has also not shown that he will suffer irreparable harm if
the injunctive relief requested is not granted. 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
granting his request for a preliminary injunction.
National Hockey League Players Ass'n v. Plymouth
Whalers Hockey Club, 372 F.3d 712, 720 n.4 (6th Cir.
2003). Finally, 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.
on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's
motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket Entry No. 17) be
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.
1981). Any response to the objections must be filed within
fourteen (14) days after service of such objections.
See Federal Rule 72(b)(2) and Local Rule