Wilmoth v. Lockhart et al

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19 in toto for 11 Motion for Relief filed by Michael Shane Wilmoth. Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief denied. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on December 21, 2010. (jas)

-ELS Wilmoth v. Lockhart et al

Doc. 31

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION MICHAEL SHANE WILMOTH v. Civil No. 10-5048 DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF

SHERIFF KEITH FERGUSON, et al. ORDER NOW on this 21st day of December 2010,

comes

on

for

consideration the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19), to which no objections have been filed. The Court,

being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows: 1. On June 19, 2008, Michael Shane Wilmoth was found guilty He

by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance (marijuana).

was sentenced as a habitual offender by the Circuit Court of Benton County, and a Judgment and Commitment was entered on June 20, 2008. Defendant is currently incarcerated as an inmate of the Varner Supermax Unit of the Arkansas Department of Corrections in Grady, Arkansas. 2. On March 5, 2010, Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed this

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging numerous complaints related to his incarceration. 3. On November 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

Injunctive Relief1 in which he seeks a court order directing (1)

Plaintiff has another lawsuit pending before the undersigned, Wilmoth v. Hobbs, Case No. 10-5094, in which he seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Plaintiff filed the same Motion for Injunctive Relief in Wilmoth v. Hobbs.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

that he have full access to the prison law library, (2) that he be transferred to a separate unit within the Arkansas Department of Corrections, and (3) that an investigation of the retaliation complained of in his motion be conducted. 4. In Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C.L. Systems, Inc., 640

F.2d 109. 113 (8th Cir. 1981), the Eighth Circuit enumerated four factors to be considered in determining whether to grant injunctive relief: (1) whether there is a substantial probability movant will succeed at trial; (2) whether the moving party will suffer

irreparable injury absent the injunction; (3) the harm to other interested parties if the relief is granted; and (4) the effect on the public interest. 5. the In Gof v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520-21 (8th Cir. 1995), addressed the district court's role in inmate

court

applications for injunctive relief as follows: "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." (internal citation omitted). 6. On November 30, 2010, the Magistrate Judge entered her

Report and Recommendation in which she stated that Plaintiff had not demonstrated that he is in danger of suffering an irreparable injury or loss. The Court has reviewed the Report and

Recommendation and finds that it is sound in all respects and that the same should be adopted herein.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is hereby adopted in toto; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 11) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren HON. JIMM LARRY HENDREN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-