United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE COURT are pro se Plaintiff Everett Stogner's Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order , Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction , and Memorandum of Law in Support of
Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction . Stogner is incarcerated with the
Mississippi Department of Corrections, and he brings this
action alleging excessive force and challenging two Rule
Violation Reports (“RVRs”). Through the present
Motions, Stogner seeks both a temporary restraining order and
a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from
transferring him. The Court has considered Plaintiff's
submissions and relevant legal authority, and finds that
Plaintiff's Motions   should be denied.
is presently housed in the South Mississippi Correctional
Institution (“SMCI”), Building D-1, which
allegedly houses disabled prisoners and those receiving
medical care for chronic conditions. Pl.'s Mot. for TRO
 at 1. Stogner alleges that he is housed there because he
suffers from violent seizures. Id. Stogner claims
Defendant Captain Anthony Beasley, a correctional officer at
the prison, used unnecessary force against Stogner while he
was having a seizure. Id. To cover up the alleged
force, Beasley purportedly issued Stogner two false RVRs.
Id. Stogner claims he filed a grievance on both
issues on April 12, 2018. Compl.  at 12; Compl. Ex. [1-1]
at 1. Stogner now seeks preliminary injunctive relief to
prevent any retaliatory transfer from the medical building,
Pl.'s Mem.  at 1, contending that “[i]t is a
well known fact here at SMCI, that when an inmate files a
grievance on the staff, they will be retaliated against.
Offender [sic] will be transfer[r]ed to . . . the most
violent part of the prison, ” id. at 2.
entitled to a preliminary injunction, Stogner must show: (1)
a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a
substantial threat of irreparable harm without the
injunction; (3) which harm outweighs any harm to Defendants
if granted; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the
public interest. Women's Med. Ctr. v. Bell, 248
F.3d 411, 418-19 n.15 (5th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff asks this
Court to prevent any future retaliatory transfer. “To
prevail on a claim of retaliation, a prisoner must establish
(1) a specific constitutional right, (2) the defendant's
intent to retaliate against the prisoner for his or her
exercise of that right, (3) a retaliatory adverse act, and
(4) causation.” McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d
225, 231 (5th Cir. Tex. 1998).
does not address the elements of retaliation. Rather, Stogner
contends he has a substantial likelihood of success on the
excessive force and RVR claims found in his Complaint.
Pl.'s Mem.  at 3-4. Stogner does not explain how
either the alleged excessive force or wrongful RVRs would be
remedied by a prohibition against his transfer. Since the
claim for which Stogner seeks preliminary injunctive relief
is retaliation, and he does not argue that he is likely to
succeed on his retaliation claim, he fails the first prong of
the test for injunctive relief as to the claim for
Stogner must show a substantial threat of irreparable harm
without the injunction. The threat of injury “must be
actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493
(2009); see also Google, Inc. v. Hood, 822 F.3d 212,
228 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding court erred in issuing
preliminary injunction because threat of injury was not
imminent). Conclusory allegations of an irreparable injury
are insufficient. Daniels Health Scis., L.L.C. v.
Vascular Health Scis., L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579, 585 (5th
argues that he is “threatened with irreparable injury
if transferred in retaliation for filing this action.”
Pl.'s Mem.  at 2. To support his position, Stogner
asserts that inmates who file grievances are transferred to
the most violent part of the prison, and that the transfer
itself is the irreparable harm. Id. Yet, Stogner
filed a grievance almost six months ago, and over three
months prior to filing the present Motions, and he has not
been transferred. Compl.  at 12; Compl. Ex. [1-1] at 1.
Stogner does not allege any specific plans to move him, give
any examples of prior retaliatory transfers, or allege that
any of these Defendants in particular are known for them.
Stogner fails to allege a substantial threat of an
failed to establish a substantial likelihood of either
success on the merits or of an irreparable injury, Stogner is
not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Therefore, the
Motions will be denied.
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pro se
Plaintiff Everett Stogner's Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order  and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
 are DENIED.