EVANS v. WILLIAMS et al

Filing 6

ORDER denying 3 Motion for TRO; ordering that this case be consolidated with 7:17-cv-189-HL-TQL, Evans v. Smith, and that the present case be administratively closed. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 1/10/2018. (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
JOHNNY DEWAYNE EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Warden STANLEY WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 7:17-CV-00189-HL-TQL

ORDER
Plaintiff Johnny Dewayne Evans has filed a pro se Complaint seeking relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In this Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on August 10,
2017, prison guards used excessive force against him, causing injury. See Compl. 5-6,
ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also alleges that prison officials have improperly confined him to
Tier II segregation. Id. at 7. Plaintiff has, however, already filed another document with
the Court that was construed as a claim under § 1983 and was docketed as such. See
Evans v. Smith, No. 7:17-cv-00170-HL-TQL (M.D. Ga. Oct. 3, 2017). That action was
also based on the events occurring on August 10, 2017, and it appears to involve many of
the same parties and to bring claims that are closely related to those alleged in the abovecaptioned lawsuit.
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes this Court to
consolidate actions that “involve a common question of law or fact.” 1 Consolidation of

1

“[T]he lack of any Rule 42(a) motion from any party in either of the two cases is no
impediment to consolidation if the relevant considerations warrant same.” Chambers v.

Plaintiff’s cases will conserve judicial resources and permit the efficient resolution of
Plaintiff’s claims. It is therefore ORDERED that this case, 7:17-cv-00189-HL-TQL, be
CONSOLIDATED into Evans v. Smith, No. 7:17-cv-00170-HL-TQL (M.D. Ga. Oct. 3,
2017), and that the present case, 7:17-cv-00189-HL-TQL, be ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSED. Plaintiff’s pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) will be
addressed in Evans v. Smith.
Plaintiff has also moved for a temporary restraining order, alleging that Defendant
Johnson, a prison guard, has been “makeing [sic] remarkable comments” to Plaintiff,
causing him to be afraid. Mot. TRO 1, ECF No. 3. A temporary restraining order
(“TRO”) or preliminary injunction is a drastic remedy used primarily to preserve the
status quo rather than grant most or all of the substantive relief sought in the complaint.
See, e.g., Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176, 1185 (11th Cir. 1983); Fernandez-Roque v.
Smith, 671 F.2d 426, 429 (11th Cir. 1982). 2 Factors a movant must show to be entitled to
a TRO include: “(1) a substantial likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) the
TRO is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the
harm the TRO would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) the TRO would serve the public
interest.” Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).

Cooney, No. 07-0373-WS-B, 2007 WL 3287364, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 2, 2007) (citing
Devlin v. Transp. Comm. Int’l Union, 175 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1999) (“A district court
can consolidate related cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) sua sponte.”)).
2

The standard for obtaining a TRO is the same as the standard for obtaining a preliminary
injunction. See Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (11th
Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Windsor v. United States, 379 F. App’x 912, 916-17 (11th Cir.
2010) (per curiam).
2

Plaintiff does not address these factors in his motion or provide any specific
details about the comments made by Defendant Johnson. The Court thus finds that at this
juncture, the facts have not been sufficiently developed to conclude that there is a
substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 3) is DENIED. If Plaintiff
still believes that a temporary restraining order is necessary, he may file a renewed
motion, addressing the factors outlined above and providing specific facts to support his
assertions, as this case progresses.
SO ORDERED, this 10th day of January, 2018.
s/ Hugh Lawson_________________________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE

3