Coleman v. Danforth, et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that this motion be Denied 84 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Corey Lewis Coleman. Objections to R&R due by 3/30/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 3/13/17. (cmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COREY LEWIS COLEMAN,
WILLIAM DANFORTH, Warden, Telfair
State Prison; SAM ZANDERS, Deputy
Warden, Telfair State Prison; LT. RODNEY )
MCCLOUD, Unit Manager, Telfair State
Prison; LIEUTENANT WILCOX, Telfair
State Prison, SERGEANT JORDAN)
THOMAS, Telfair State Prison; SERGEANT )
TAYLOR, Telfair State Prison; OFFICER
BELL, Cert. Officer, Telfair State Prison;
JOHN DOE, Cert. Officer, Telfair State
Prison; JILL CRAVEY, Nurse, Telfair State )
Prison; and DR. CHANEY, Telfair State
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison (“GDCP”) in
Jackson, Georgia, filed the above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding
events at Telfair State Prison (“TSP”) and is proceeding pro se. Presently before the Court is
Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. (Doc. no.
84.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s
motion be DENIED.
Plaintiff alleges he has been placed in segregation for 1,245 days in a “modern day
dungeon” and is receiving inadequate medical treatment at GDCP. (See generally doc. no. 84.)
Deficiencies in staffing, treatment, equipment, and procedures at GDCP have caused Plaintiff to
suffer from permanent bone and nerve damage, limited mobility in his right arm, arthritic pain,
lower back pain, and emotional and mental anguish. (Id. at 10.) GDCP staff has also refused
him medical treatment for these and other health problems. (Id. at 10-11.) Plaintiff claims
officials at GDCP and TSP are responsible for these conditions. (See generally id.) Plaintiff
asks the Court to order examination by an independent psychiatrist, physician, and orthopedic
specialist, and, at their direction, proscribe a course of mental, emotional, and physical therapy.
(Id. at 15-16.)
A party moving for injunctive relief must show the following: “(1) substantial likelihood
of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3)
the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may
cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public
interest.” McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998) (citing All
Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989)).
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the
movant clearly establishes the ‘burden of persuasion’ as to the four requisites.” All Care Nursing
Serv., Inc., 887 F.2d at 1537 (citing United States v. Jefferson Cnty., 720 F.2d 1511, 1519 (11th
Plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits. In his original and amended
complaints, Plaintiff named officials at both TSP and GDCP. (See doc. nos. 1, 10, 38-1.)
However, after screening, the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia severed and
transferred Plaintiff’s remaining viable claims against officials at TSP to this Court in the
Southern District of Georgia. (See doc. no. 72, p. 2.) All of Plaintiff’s viable claims against
officials at GDCP remained in his case in the Middle District. (See id. at 1-3.)
All of Plaintiff’s allegations in his motion for injunctive relief are regarding his current
conditions of confinement at GDCP. There is no possibility of Plaintiff succeeding on the merits
of his current allegations as to these Defendants, who have no involvement in his treatment at
GDCP. Nor does this Court does not have authority to direct GDCP officials to take any action
since they are no longer parties. See Prewitt Enters., Inc. v. OPEC, 353 F.3d 916, 925 (11th Cir.
2003) (“[A]n individual or entity is not obliged to engage in litigation unless [officially] notified
of the action . . . under a court’s authority, by formal process.”) (internal quotations omitted).
Therefore, this Court cannot grant Plaintiff injunctive relief.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s
motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction be DENIED. (Doc. no. 84.)
If Plaintiff wishes to pursue relief against GDCP officials for their acts and omissions, he must
do so in the Middle District of Georgia, which it appears he has already done. (See doc. no. 89,
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 2017, at Augusta,
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?