Gibbs v. Glenn et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying Gibbs' requests for certain video footage be subpoenaed as evidence and for transfer to another facility contained in docket entry 24 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 9/9/2020. (jak)

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

EDDIE GIBBS

v.

PLAINTIFF

No: 3:20-cv-00123 DPM-PSH

GLENN, et al.

DEFENDANTS 
ORDER

Plaintiff Eddie Gibbs has filed a letter requesting certain video footage be
subpoenaed as evidence (Doc. No. 24). Gibbs also requests to be transferred to
another facility. Gibbs’ requests are denied. The video requested concerns alleged
retaliation occurring in August 2020. This lawsuit, filed on April 23, 2020, concerns
an incident that occurred on February 23, 2020. See Doc. No. 4. Because Gibbs’
claims asserting retaliatory action are separate and distinct from his claims in this
lawsuit, he must bring those claims in a separate lawsuit,1 after he exhausts his
administrative remedies. Gibbs request for a transfer is also denied. The Court does

1

 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 18, a plaintiff may bring multiple claims, related or not,

against a single defendant. To proceed against multiple defendants, a plaintiff must
satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, which allows claims against multiple defendants when the
claims against them arise out of the same series of occurrences, and present questions of
fact common to all defendants.

not interject itself into prison administration, and can only consider whether
injunctive relief is appropriate2 if it is brought in a properly filed case.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of September, 2020.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

2

The granting of injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy, particularly in a
prison context. See Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 1995). In considering whether
to grant such relief, the Court must consider the following factors: (1) the threat of
irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of the balance between this harm and the
injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability
that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest. See Dataphase
Systems, Inc. v. CL Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981). “The burden of proving
that a preliminary injunction should be issued rests entirely with the movant.” Goff, 60
F.3d at 519-521 (citing Modern Computer Systems v. Modern Banking Systems, 871 F.2d
734, 737 (8th Cir. 1989) (en banc)).