Glenn v. Johnson State Prison et al

Filing 16

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying 5 MOTION for Federal Prison Housing No.2, 10 MOTION to Open Lawsuit, 14 MOTION for Protective Order, 11 MOTION That I Have Been Threatened With Violence at Georgia State Prison, 4 MOTION Add men tal Health Diagnosis and for Federal Prison Housing or Injunction for Open Prea Dorm, 2 MOTION to be placed in a Federal Prison for safety filed by Kenneth Glenn. Objections to R&R due by 12/22/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 12/05/2017. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
KENNETH GLENN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOHNSON STATE PRISON; MRS. K.
)
WILLIAMS, Chief Counselor; MRS.
)
WICKER HUMPHRIES, Counselor; SHAWN )
EMMONS, Warden; MRS. PRICE, Deputy
)
Warden; MRS. BAKER, Counselor;
)
JEFFREY WIGGINS, Sergeant; MR.
)
CV 317-059
O’NEAL, Unit Manager; GOVERNOR
)
NATHAN DEAL; HOMER BRYSON,
)
Commissioner GDC; MR. JEFFERSON,
)
Deputy Warden of Security; MRS. PERRY, )
Mental Health Counselor; JOHN DOE,
)
Johnson State Prison’s Medical Provider;
)
JSP MEDICAL DIRECTOR; MRS.
)
ANDREWS-BODI, NA/PA; BRIAN DOE,
)
Nurse; JSP PSYCHIATRIC PROVIDER; and )
JOHN DOE, JSP Psychiatric Provider’s
)
Director,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________________________
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
_________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Georgia State Prison (“GSP”) in Reidsville,
Georgia, filed the above-captioned case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding events
alleged to have occurred at Johnson State Prison (“JSP”) in Wrightsville, Georgia, and is
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Before the Court are Plaintiff’s various
motions for injunctive relief requesting the Court place him in federal prison or, in the

alternative, make GSP officials house him in a PREA approved open dorm. (Doc. nos. 2, 4,
5, 10, 11, 14.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS
Plaintiff’s motions be DENIED.
I.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges officials at his current place of imprisonment, GSP, refuse to take the

proper steps to protect him from various gang members who are out to assault, beat, rape, and
kill him. (See generally doc. nos. 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14.) Plaintiff details his long history of being
assaulted by gang members and prison staff at JSP, Augusta State Medical Prison, and Hayes
State Prison in retaliation for uncovering the gangs’ “cell phone scheme.” (Id.) Plaintiff further
contends officials at GSP refuse to take seriously his complaints his life is in danger and insists
on housing him in dangerous, two-man dorms without cameras. (Id.) Plaintiff asks the Court to
place him in federal prison or, in the alternative, order GSP officials to house him in a PREA
approved open dorm. (Id.)
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
2

Cir. 1983)).
Plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits. In his complaint, Plaintiff
alleges wrongdoing exclusively by officials at JSP. (Doc. no. 1.) In contrast, however, all
allegations made in his motions for injunctive relief are directed against prison officials at GSP
in Reidsville, Georgia, who are not parties to this civil action. There is no possibility of Plaintiff
succeeding on the merits of his current allegations as to these Defendants, who have no
involvement in his housing or safety at GSP. This Court does not have authority to direct GSP
officials to take any action since they are not 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).
Plaintiff contends his Motion to Open Lawsuit (doc. no. 10) constitutes a new lawsuit and
automatically grants this Court jurisdiction over his claims against GSP officials. (See doc. no.
10, p. 5; doc. no. 11, p. 2; doc. no. 14, p. 2.) However, Plaintiff may not magically grant
jurisdiction; jurisdiction and venue are governed by federal statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
1332, 1391. Therefore, should Plaintiff wish to pursue injunctive relief against GSP officials,
Plaintiff must file a completely new lawsuit, which would require submission of a new
complaint and either a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis or the $400.00 filing fee, in
the Statesboro Division of this District, which is located at Clerk, U.S. District Court, P.O.
Box 8286, Savannah, Georgia 31412.
II.

CONCLUSION
The Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief be
3

DENIED. (Doc. nos. 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14.) If Plaintiff wishes to pursue relief against GSP
officials for their acts and omissions, he must do so by exhausting his administrative remedies
and, if unsuccessful in that process, filing a separate civil action against GSP officials in the
Statesboro Division of this Court as detailed above. He may not merely file a “Motion to Open
Lawsuit” in his present case and “grant jurisdiction.”
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 2017, at Augusta,
Georgia.

4