Bradley v. Outlaw

Filing 61

ORDER denying 55 MOTION for Protective Order, which the Court characterizes as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Cory Deontra Bradley. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 5/18/12. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION

CORY DEONTRA BRADLEY
REG #31675-044
V.

PLAINTIFF

2:11CV00153 JMM/JTR

RONNIE MEADOWS, Officer,
FCI-Forrest City, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff, Cory Deontra Bradley, is a prisoner in the Federal Correctional
Institution located in Forrest City, Arkansas. He has recently filed a Motion for
Protective Order, which is more properly characterized as a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. See docket entry #55. For the following reasons, the Motion will be
denied.
II. Discussion
In August of 2011, Plaintiff filed this pro se action alleging that Defendants
violated the Federal Torts Claim Act and his constitutional rights when they failed to:
(1) protect him from being beaten by another inmate on March 29, 2011; (2) provide
him with adequate medical care for the injury he suffered during that fight; (3) provide
him with adequate mental health care for paranoia; and (4) grant him protective

custody and a single man cell. See docket entries #1 and #5.
On May 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion alleging that Defendants and other
prison officials are currently retaliating against him, in numerous ways, for filing this
lawsuit.1 See docket entry #55. Accordingly, he asks the Court to issue an Order
directing that he be immediately transferred to another federal prison that “is within
500 miles of his home state of Missouri.” Id. at 2.
When deciding whether to grant a prisoner preliminary injunctive relief, a court
must consider: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the balance
between the harm to the movant and the harm to the nonmoving party should the
injunction issue; (3) the likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) the public interest.
Bear v. Kautzky, 305 F.3d 802, 805 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Dataphase Sys. v. C.L.
Sys., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981)). Importantly, the movant bears the burden
of establishing that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction. Roudachevski v. All-Am.
Care Ctrs., Inc., 648 F.3d 701, 705 (8th Cir. 2011). Additionally, the Eighth Circuit
has emphasized that "in the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always
be viewed with great caution because judicial restraint is especially called for in
dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison administration.” Goff v.

1

The Court has previously denied Plaintiff permission, on two occasions, to
amend his Complaint to add his retaliation claims to this lawsuit. See docket entries
#48 and #56.
-2-

Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995).
Keeping these principles in mind, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s request
for a preliminary injunction should be denied because he has not demonstrated a threat
of irreparable harm or the likelihood of success on the merits of his underlying
claims.2
Additionally, a party requesting a preliminary injunction must “establish a
relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted
in the complaint.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). In this
case, Plaintiff has failed to establish a relationship between the alleged retaliation and
the conduct asserted in his Complaint (i.e., failure to protect, inadequate medical
treatment, and denial of protective custody status and a single man cell). See, e.g.,
Devose, 42 F.3d at 471 (affirming the denial of a prisoner’s request for a preliminary
injunction because his allegations of recent retaliation for filing the lawsuit were
“entirely different from” the inadequate medical care claims and relief requested in
his § 1983 complaint); Owens v. Severin, Case No. 08-1418, 2008 WL 4240153 (Sept.
18, 2008) (unpublished opinion) (affirming the denial of a prisoner’s request for a
preliminary injunction because “the relief sought was unrelated to the allegations in

2

In fact, the Court has determined that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment has merit. See docket entry #40.
-3-

his [§ 1983] complaint”).
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order (docket entry #55), which has

been construed as a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, is DENIED.
2.

The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in

forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Dated this 18

day of May, 2012.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-