United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division
BRAMLETTE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are the plaintiff's Motion for TRO [Doc. 18],
Motion for Injunctive Relief [Doc. 41], Motion for Injunctive
Relief [Doc. 62], and United States Magistrate Judge Michael
T. Parker's Reports and Recommendations [Docs. 71 and
Judge Parker recommends that the plaintiff's motions
[Docs. 18, 41, 62] be denied. Doc. 71, p. 4. He also
recommends that Pelicia Hall be dismissed with prejudice,
that Monica Carter be dismissed with prejudice, and that the
case continue as to the remaining defendants. Doc. 72, p. 1.
For reasons that follow, Magistrate Judge Parker's
Reports and Recommendations [Docs. 71 and 72] are ADOPTED.
plaintiff brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The 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. The plaintiff also complains that
officials at WCCF failed to protect him from other inmates.
In his motion for TRO [Doc. 18], the plaintiff alleges that
non-defendants, Barbara Scott, Sgt. Reese, and other unnamed
officers, have threated him and acted unprofessionally toward
him because he “wrote them up” [Doc. 18, p. 1]
and because they do not want him informing prison officials
about drugs being smuggled into prison. As relief, the
plaintiff requests that his custody level and his kitchen job
motion for injunctive relief [Doc. 41], the plaintiff
complains that prison officials are treating him unfairly and
specifically, that a dental assistant, Ms. Pulliam,
threatened to kill him. As relief, the plaintiff requests
that the Court order prison officials to act professionally,
motion for injunctive relief [Doc. 62], the plaintiff
requests that the Court order prison officials to stop
harassing him and stop downgrading his custody level. Doc.
62, p. 1. The plaintiff complains that Inmate Reshawn Jones,
who is housed in administrative segregation along with the
plaintiff, attempted to attack him and poses a threat to him.
Doc. 62, p. 2.
requirements for obtaining a TRO or preliminary injunction,
the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a substantial likelihood
that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits; (2) a
substantial threat that irreparable injury will result if the
injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury
outweighs the threatened harm to the plaintiff; and (4) that
granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the
public interest. Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United
Gas Pipe Line Co., 18');">760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir.
1985)(internal citation omitted). The decision to grant or
deny a preliminary injunction is discretionary with the
district court. Id. A preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary remedy. Id. It should only be granted
if the plaintiff has clearly carried the burden of persuasion
on all four of the requirements. Id.
the hearing on the motions, the plaintiff stated that, in
July 2018, he had a medium custody level and was working in
the prison kitchen. Doc. 71, p. 2. Prison officials, however,
wrote him rule violation reports (“RVRs”), which
resulted in a custody level downgrade and the loss of his
kitchen job. Id. The plaintiff again complained that
the dental assistant, Ms. Pulliam, threatened to kill him and
refused to provide him a teeth cleaning. Doc. 71, pp. 2-3.
Although Sgt. Selvage was not mentioned in any of the
plaintiff's motions, during the hearing, the plaintiff
complained that Sgt. Selvage issued him RVRs and failed to do
anything about the other officers threatening him. Doc. 71,
p. 3. The plaintiff requested that the Court protect him from
all threats from prison officials. Id.
the hearing, the plaintiff submitted copies of his sick calls
requesting a teeth cleaning and other dental care, affidavits
stating that Sgt. Selvage threatened him, and RVRs issued
against him. See Docs. 69-1, 69-2. In response, the
defendants submitted a detention notice from May 23, 2018,
stating that the 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. Doc. 69-3, pp. 9, 13. The defendants also
submitted a reclassification score sheet from October 1,
2018, indicating that the plaintiff's custody level was
downgraded because he was convicted of possessing contraband
in prison and previously attempted to escape prison. Doc.
69-3, pp. 28, 26. Additionally, the defendants demonstrated
that the plaintiff is now kept separate from Sgt. Selvage due
to “fear that he may become hostile toward this staff
member” and that Inmate Reshawn Jones, who the
plaintiff claims is a threat to him, is no longer housed in
administrative segregation with the plaintiff. Doc. 69-3, pp.
Judge Parker finds that the plaintiff has failed to meet the
requirements for injunctive relief because he did not
demonstrate that there is a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits or that a substantial threat of irreparable
harm exists. Doc. 71, p. 3. Also, the evidence presented at
the hearing shows the changes in the plaintiff's custody
level and housing assignments resulted from the
plaintiff's wrongful actions and altercations with other
inmates and prison staff members. At the hearing, the
plaintiff admitted that he possessed contraband, and he
failed to demonstrate that any RVR was wrongfully issued. The
evidence also showed that Inmate Jones is no longer housed
with the plaintiff. Allegations of verbal abuse and threats
do not amount to constitutional violations. See McFadden
v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1983). The plaintiff
failed to show that loss of a job in the kitchen or failure
to provide a teeth cleaning warrant extraordinary relief.
Therefore, the plaintiff has not met his burden of proving
all four requirements for injunctive relief. See Miss.
Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760
F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985).
plaintiff filed an Objection [Doc. 75], stating that he had
proven to the Court that he is being harassed by prison
officials and other inmates. In his Objection, the plaintiff
reiterated arguments he already made. The plaintiff does make
one new argument that prison officials are paying other
offenders to assault him. Doc. 75, p. 4. However, this new
allegation, without more, fails to demonstrate a substantial
likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits or
that substantial threat that irreparable injury will result
if the injunction is not granted. See Miss. Power &
Light Co., 18');">760 F.2d 618. Therefore, the Court finds the
plaintiff still has not met his burden for obtaining a TRO.
Therefore, the plaintiff's motions [Docs. 18, 41, 62] are
Magistrate Judge Parker's second Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 72], no objection is filed. The parties
appeared before Magistrate Judge Parker and participated in
an omnibus hearing on January 24, 2019. During the hearing,
the plaintiff stated that he no longer wishes to pursue his
claims against Pelicia Hall and Monica Carter and requested
that Hall and Carter be dismissed from this action. The Court
explained that the dismissal of Hall and Carter would be with
prejudice. The plaintiff testified that he understood the
consequences of such a dismissal. The plaintiff also
testified that he is of sound mind and judgment, is not under
any undue influence or pressure to dismiss his claims against
these defendants, and is doing so voluntarily. No. defendant
opposed the plaintiff's request. Therefore, Magistrate
Judge Parker recommends that Pelicia Hall be dismissed with
prejudice, Monica Carter be dismissed with prejudice, and
that the case continue as to the remaining defendants. Doc.
72, p. 1. This Court adopts the Report and Recommendation
[Doc. 72]'s findings and conclusions as its own.
Therefore, Pelicia Hall and Monica Carter are DISMISSED with
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Parker's Reports and
Recommendations [Docs. 71 and 72] are ADOPTED as the findings
and conclusions of this Court;
FURTHER ORDERED that Pelicia Hall and Monica Carter are