Jones v. Schortman et al

Filing 38

ORDER denying 36 Plaintiff's Motion for Federal Protection for the reasons stated in the attached memorandum. A copy of this Order shall be mailed to Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 02/05/2024. (Dao, John)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
--------------------------------------------------------------DASHANTE SCOTT JONES,
Plaintiff,
-againstSCHORTMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------VERNON D. OLIVER, United States District Judge:

x
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
x

RULING ON MOTION
FOR FEDERAL
PROTECTION
22-CV-1512 (VDO)

Plaintiff Dashante Scott Jones, a sentenced inmate incarcerated at Corrigan Correctional
Center in Uncasville, Connecticut, brings this action pro se and in forma pauperis under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Following initial review, the remaining claims are a First Amendment retaliation
claim, state law defamation claims, and an ADA claim against Officer Schortman, a due process
claim based on issuance of a false disciplinary report and state law defamation claims against
Officer Harris, and First Amendment retaliation claims against Lieutenant Davis. See Doc. No.
14. All claims relate to events occurring while Plaintiff was confined at MacDougall-Walker
Correctional Institution and all defendants are alleged to work there.
Plaintiff now has filed a motion asking the Court to order that he be transferred to
Bridgeport Correctional Center, Hartford Correctional Center, or New Haven Correctional
Center and confined in a single cell. See Doc. No. 36 at 3. Although captioned as a motion for
federal protection, Plaintiff is seeking preliminary injunctive relief. For the following reasons,
Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Interim injunctive relief “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be

granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Grand River
Enter. Six Nations Ltd. v. Pryor, 481 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). To prevail,
Plaintiff must demonstrate “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor,
and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 876 (2015)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman, No. 212535, 2024 WL 172609, at *9 (2d Cir. Jan. 17, 2024) (mandatory injunctions which “alter the
status quo by commanding some positive act” require a showing of a clear and substantial
likelihood of success on the merits) (citation omitted); Hester ex rel. A.H. v. French, 985 F.3d
165, 176 (2d Cir. 2021) (to obtain mandatory preliminary injunctive relief against a government
actor, plaintiff must, inter alia, “make a strong showing of irreparable harm” absent injunctive
relief and “demonstrate a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits”).
Plaintiff cannot obtain preliminary injunctive relief from persons who are not named as
defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) (injunction binding only on parties); Oliphant v.
Villano, No. 3:09-CV-862(JBA), 2010 WL 5069879, at *2 (D. Conn. Dec. 3, 2010) (holding
that the court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin conduct of prison mental health, medical, and
correctional staff who are not named as defendants).
In addition, as one of the requirements for an award of preliminary injunctive relief is
demonstration of a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims, Plaintiff’s request for
preliminary injunctive relief must relate to the claims proceeding in this case. See, e.g., DeBeers
Consol. Mines Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) (preliminary injunction
inappropriate where the injunction “deals with a matter lying wholly outside of the issues in the
suit”); McMillian v. Konecny, No. 9:15-CV-0241(GTS/DJS), 2018 WL 813515, at *2 (N.D.N.Y.
2

Feb. 9, 2018) (relief sought in motion for preliminary injunction must relate to claims in
complaint); Torres v. UConn Health, No. 3:17-CV-325(SRU), 2017 WL 3713521, at *2 (D.
Conn. Aug. 29, 2017) (preliminary injunctive relief not warranted because claim in motion was
unrelated to claims in complaint).
II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff states that he has been transferred to Corrigan Correctional Center and was

threatened by a correctional officer there. He seeks an order that the be transferred to one of
three correctional facilities and housed in a single cell. The defendants all are alleged to work
at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution. Thus, they would not have authority to transfer
Plaintiff from Corrigan Correctional Center to another facility. Nor are the issues raised in the
motion related to the remaining claims in this case. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion must
be denied. If Plaintiff has concerns regarding his safety, he may pursue them by filing a new
case.
III.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Federal Protection [Doc. No. 36] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Hartford, Connecticut
February 5, 2024
/s/Vernon D. Oliver
VERNON D. OLIVER
United States District Judge

3