Earls v. Stringfellow et al

Filing 22

RECOMMENDED PARTIAL DISPOSITION recommending that 18 Earls's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction be denied; and the Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal from any Order adopting this Recommendation would not be taken in good faith. Objections due within 14 days of this Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 11/27/2017. (kdr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION

JACOB THOMAS EARLS,
ADC #114556
V.

PLAINTIFF
5:17CV00091 DPM/JTR

DR. STEVEN STRINGFELLOW; and
ARTHUR BROWN, Corporal,
Cummins Unit, ADC

DEFENDANTS

RECOMMENDED PARTIAL DISPOSITION
The following Recommended Partial Disposition (ARecommendation@) has
been sent to United States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. Any party may file
written objections to this Recommendation.

Objections must be specific and

include the factual or legal basis for disagreeing with the Recommendation. An
objection to a factual finding must specifically identify the finding of fact believed
to be wrong and describe the evidence that supports that belief.
An original and one copy of the objections must be received by the Clerk of
this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. If no objections are
filed, Judge Marshall can adopt this Recommendation without independently
reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may also waive
any right to appeal questions of fact.
1

I. Introduction
In this pro se § 1983 action, Plaintiff, Jacob Thomas Earls ("Earls"), alleges
that Defendants Dr. Stringfellow and Corporal Arthur Brown failed to provide him
with adequate dental care for an impacted wisdom tooth. Doc. 2.
On October 26, 2017, Earls filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
or Preliminary Injunction that seeks relief that is unrelated to his underlying dental
care claim.

Doc. 18.

Specifically, Earls asks the Court to order that he be

immediately transferred to another ADC Unit because Defendants have retaliated
against him for filing this lawsuit. Id.
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is Ato preserve the status quo and
prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit=s
merits.@ Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). Thus, the party
requesting a preliminary injunction must Aestablish a relationship between the injury
claimed in the party=s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.@ Id.
Earls has not established a relationship between the alleged retaliation that he
suffered after filing this action and the merits of his underlying dental care claim.
Because transferring Earls to another Unit would not preserve the status quo as to
his dental care claim, his request for preliminary relief is improper. See, e.g.,
Devose, 42 F.3d at 471 (affirming the denial of a prisoner=s request for a preliminary
2

injunction because his allegations of recent retaliation for filing the lawsuit were
Aentirely 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 Athe relief sought was unrelated to the
allegations in his [' 1983] complaint@).
Further, in order to pursue retaliation claims that arose after he commenced
this action, Earls must first properly and fully exhaust his retaliation claims within
the ADC's grievance procedure. If Earls does not obtain relief from the ADC
through the grievance process, he can bring his retaliation claims in a new and
separately filed § 1983 action. See 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(a); Johnson v. Jones, 340
F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003); Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir. 2000).
II. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1.

Earls's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary

Injunction (Doc. 18) be DENIED.
2.

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

forma pauperis appeal from any Order adopting this Recommendation would not be
taken in good faith.
3

Dated this 27th day of November, 2017.

___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4