United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Michael T. Parker United States Magistrate Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for TRO
, Motion for Injunctive Relief , and Motion for
Injunctive Relief . Having considered the Motions and the
applicable law and having conducted a hearing on the Motions,
the undersigned recommends that the Motions be DENIED.
civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff complains that medical
professionals at the Mississippi State Penitentiary
(“Parchman”), Central Mississippi Correctional
Facility (“CMCF”), and Wilkinson County
Correctional Facility (“WCCF”) failed to provide
him adequate medical care. Plaintiff also complains that officials
at WCCF failed to protect him from other
inmates. See Omnibus Order .
Motion for TRO , Plaintiff alleges that certain
non-defendants-Barbara Scott, Sgt. Reese, and other unnamed
officers-have threatened him and acted unprofessionally
toward him because he “wrote them up” and because
they do not want him informing prison officials about drugs
being smuggled into the prison. As relief, Plaintiff wants
his custody level restored and his job in the kitchen
Motion for Injunctive Relief , Plaintiff again complains
that prison officials have threatened him. Plaintiff
specifically complains that a dental assistant, Ms. Pulliam,
threatened to kill him. As relief, Plaintiff seeks an order
from the Court requiring prison officials to act
Motion for Injunctive Relief , requests that the Court
order prison officials to stop harassing him and stop
downgrading his custody level. Additionally, Plaintiff
complains that Inmate Reshawn Jones, who is housed in
administrative segregation along with Plaintiff, attempted to
attack him and poses a threat to him.
obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction, Plaintiff must satisfy the stringent requirements
set forth in Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. United
Gas Pipeline Co., 760 F.2d 618 (5th Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, Plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat
that failure to grant the injunction will result in
irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs
any damage that the injunction will cause to the adverse
party; and (4) that the injunction will not have an adverse
effect on the public interest. Id; Women's
Med. Ctr. of N.W. Houston v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 419
(5th Cir. 2001). These requirements are not balanced.
Instead, each one must be met before the Court can provide
relief. “An injunction is an extraordinary remedy and
should not issue except upon a clear showing of possible
irreparable injury.” Lewis v. S.S. Baune, 534
F.2s 1115, 1121 (5th Cir. 1976).
the hearing on the Motions, Plaintiff stated that, in July of
2018, he had a medium custody level and was working in the
prison kitchen. Prison officials, however, wrote him rule
violation reports (“RVRs”), which resulted in a
custody level downgrade and the loss of his job in the
kitchen. Plaintiff again complained that the dental
assistant, Ms. Pulliam, threatened to kill him and refused to
provide him a teeth cleaning. Although Sgt. Savage was not
mentioned in any of Plaintiff's Motions, during the
hearing Plaintiff complained that Sgt. Savage issued him RVRs
and failed to do anything about the other officers
threatening him. Plaintiff requested that the Court protect
him from all threats from prison officials.
the hearing, Plaintiff submitted copies of his sick calls
requesting a teeth cleaning and other dental care, affidavits
stating that Sgt. Savage threatened him, and RVRs issued
against him. See Exhibits [69-1] [69-2]. In
response, Defendants submitted a detention notice from May
23, 2018, stating that Plaintiff was moved to administrative
segregation because he alleged that his cellmate attacked him
and another from July 3, 2018, stating that he was again
moved to segregation because he refused to be moved to
another unit. Exhibit [69-3] at 9, 13. Defendants also
submitted a reclassification score sheet from October 1,
2018, indicated that Plaintiff's custody level was
downgraded because he was convicted of possessing contraband
in prison (cell phone, charger, and earbuds) and previously
attempted to escape prison. [69-3] at 28, 26. Additionally,
Defendants demonstrated that Plaintiff is now kept separate
from Sgt. Savage due to “fear that he may become
hostile toward this staff member” and that Inmate
Reshawn Jones, who Plaintiff claims is a threat to him, is no
longer housed in administrative segregation with Plaintiff
[69-3] at 19, 31-32.
opinion of the undersigned, Plaintiff has failed to meet the
requirements for injunctive relief. Plaintiff did not
demonstrate that there is a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits or that a substantial threat of irreparable
harm exists. Courts will rarely interfere with decisions
relating to how inmates should be classified or where inmates
should be housed. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S.
238, 245 (1983) (holding that prisoners have no
constitutional right to be incarcerated in a certain facility
or unit). Moreover, the evidence presented at the hearing
show that the changes in Plaintiff's custody level and
housing assignments resulted from Plaintiff's wrongful
actions and his altercations with other inmates and prison
staff members. During the hearing, Plaintiff admitted that he
possessed contraband, and he failed to demonstrate that any
RVR was wrongfully issued. The evidence also showed that
Inmate Jones, who allegedly posed a threat to Plaintiff, is
no longer housed with Plaintiff.
allegations of verbal abuse and threatening language do not
amount to constitutional violations. See McFadden v.
Lucas, 713 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff also
failed to show that loss of a job in the kitchen or failure
to provide a teeth cleaning warrants extraordinary relief.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his is an exceptional
case and has not “clearly carried the burden of
persuasion” on all four requirements for injunctive
relief. See Mississippi Power, 760 F.2d at 621.
Plaintiff's claims can be addressed in due course on the
merits by motions and/or trial.
of the foregoing, the ...