LUDY v. NELSON et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING 12 Motion for TRO. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/14/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
MITCHELL LAVERN LUDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CYNTHIA NELSON, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 5:14-cv-73 (MTT) (CHW)
Proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER
Before the Court in this pro se § 1983 action is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
restraining order. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff, an inmate at Dooly State Prison (“DSP”), claims that the
named Defendants, most of whom are DSP officials, are “not allowing [] Plaintiff to observe
Passover,” which begins today, April 14, 2014, at sundown. (Doc. 12, p. 2). Plaintiff also
claims, in the underlying action, that he was unable to observe Passover in 2013.
Because the Court has not yet completed the screening of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, service has not issued and the named Defendants are not properly before
the Court. Nevertheless, the Court electronically served the Attorney General’s Office with a
copy of Plaintiff’s motion, and the Attorney General’s Office has filed a response. (Doc. 13).
Included with that response is the affidavit of Marble Chaney, the DSP Deputy Warden of Care
and Treatment.
A temporary restraining order, like the one Plaintiff requests, is appropriate only where
the movant demonstrates: (a) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (b) that the order
is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (c) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the
order would cause to the non-movants; and (d) that the order would not be adverse to the public

interest. See Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (11th Cir.
2001); see also Schiavo ex. rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005)
(noting that temporary injunctive relief is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that is “not to be
granted unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to the four
prerequisites”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, Plaintiff has not shown that DSP officials are preventing him from observing
Passover by withholding properly-delivered religious items, or by threatening to do so. In his
motion, Plaintiff contends that prison officials have withheld unspecified “Passover items” that
were mailed by Plaintiff’s family members to the prison chaplain rather than to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff further contends that he is being held in disciplinary segregation due to the error in the
address of the package. According to Plaintiff’s motion, officials have stated that Plaintiff would
not be allowed to observe Passover while in segregation.
In her affidavit in response to Plaintiff’s motion, Deputy Warden Chaney testifies that
Plaintiff placed a request for several items related to the observance of Passover and that Plaintiff
was instructed on the proper method for delivery of such items. Chaney testifies that the
chaplain received a package containing “anointing oil,” an item not commonly associated with
the observance of Passover. Because the oil was “not sent via the appropriate mechanisms,”
Plaintiff was not allowed to receive it and was issued a disciplinary report. Chaney notes that the
Passover-related items specifically requested by Plaintiff and approved by DSP officials have not
yet been received. She assures the Court that further approved Passover items will be provided
to Plaintiff upon receipt.
In light of this evidence that prison officials are not presently interfering with Plaintiff’s
right to observe Passover, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on

2

the merits of any claim related to his present observance of Passover. He has also failed to
demonstrate that the issuance of a temporary restraining order would serve to present irreparable
injury, as any delay in the delivery of his Passover items does not appear to be attributable to
prison officials. Of course, the merits of Plaintiff’s 2013 Passover-observance claim are not now
at issue, so the instant Order has no bearing on Plaintiff’s underlying action. Accordingly, it is
hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 12) be
DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 14th day of April, 2014.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3