Holley v. Core Civic

Filing 10

ORDER overruling Plaintiff's objection, adopting 5 Report and Recommendation, denying 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint. Signed by District Judge J. Randal Hall on 1/3/2025. (gmh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

SIRHOLLEY,

Plaintiff,
CV624-059

V.

CORE CIVIC,
Defendant.
ORDER

Pro ^ plaintiff Sir Holley filed this case alleging that he was subjected to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. fSee doc. no. 1 at 5.) He was granted leave

to proceed in forma pauperis and the Magistrate Judge directed him to return several

forms. fSee doc. no. 4.) When he failed to comply, the Magistrate Judge recommended
that his case be dismissed.(S^ doc. no. 5.) Holley objects to that recommendation. (See

doc. no. 6.) Finally,the Court must address Holley's request for a preliminary injunction.
(Doc. no. 7.)

Holley's objection to the Report and Recommendation states, unedited and in its
entirety: "I Sir Holley believe my complaint should not be dismissed due to the fact of

institutional shakedown and holidays which postponed delay of delivery of my mail. All
my paperwork was filed in a timely manner." (Doc. no. 6.) Holley's reference to

"holidays" is somewhat confusing, as the Magistrate Judge's Order concerning the forms
was entered on October 22, 2024 and Holley was required to return the forms by

November 5, 2024. (Doc. no. 4.) Moreover, the docket in this case straigjafforwardly
contradicts Holley's contention that he returned the required forms. The vague reference
to "paperwork" does not amount to an assertion that he submitted the required forms for

mailing, particularly given that he has taken no apparent steps to submit the forms out-

of-time. Holley's Objection is, therefore, OVERRULED. (Doc. no. 6.) Accordingly, the
Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. (Doc. no. 5.) Holley's Complaint is
DISMISSSED. (Doc. no. 1.) The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.

Although the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that
Holley's Complaint should be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court's Orders,
it will briefly address his request for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. no. 7.) The requested
injunction would preclude "the Defendants [sic], their successors in office, agents and
employees and all other persons acting in concert and participation with them," from
"placing Plaintiff in the hole, harming him, harassing him, and or stop him from calling
and writing his family, keep him in general population allowing his safety [un]til[]his
release from Core Civic." (Id. at 1.) First, this Court lacks jurisdiction to enter an
injunction against any nonparty; that is, any party other than Defendant Core Civic. See
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research. Inc.. 395 U.S. 100,112(1969); Infant Formula
Antitrust Litig.. MDL 878 v. Abbott Laboratories. 72 F.sd 842, 842-43 (11th Cir. 1995);
see also, e.g.. Dipietro v. Lockhart. 4:20-cv-00035-CDL-MSH, 2022 WL17588299, at *1

(M.D. Ga. July 5, 2022). Moreover, to the extent that the conduct Holley would seek to
enjoin is plausibly unlawful, the injunction "would do no more than instruct [the

defendant] to 'obey the law,'...[and] would not satisfy the specificity requirements of
Rule 65(d)and... would be incapable of enforcement." Burton v. Citv of Belle Glade. 178

F.3d 1175, 1201 (11th Cir. 1999). Finally, Holley has not made any of the showings

required for the "extraordinary and drastic remedy" of a preliminary injunction. See, e.g..

All Care Nursing Serv.. Inc. v. Bethesda Memorial Hosp.. Inc.. 887 F.2d 1535,1537(nth

Cir. 1989). His Motion is, therefore, DENIED. (Doc. no.^

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia,this3 day of January, 2025.

H0N0RAajl£^RA5T)AL HALE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA