TAYLOR v. VAISVILAS et al

Filing 24

ENTRY Discussing Motion for Preliminary Injunction - The plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction 23 is DENIED. (SEE ENTRY). (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/9/2012. (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

JOSEPH TAYLOR,
v.

Plaintiff,

ROSE VAISVILAS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-1436-JMS-DKL

Entry Discussing Motion for Preliminary Injunction
The plaintiff, a state prisoner, seeks the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that
should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of
persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (citation omitted). An
injunction is an equitable remedy so its issuance is one which falls within the sound
discretion of the district court. See Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329 (1944). A
court may issue a stay pending appeal or an order granting interim injunctive relief
only when the movant demonstrates: (a) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (b)
that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (c)
that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (d) that an injunction is in the
public interest. Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The “movant has
the burden to show that all four factors . . . weigh in favor of the injunction.” Davis
v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1292 (D.C.Cir. 2009).
The plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction [23] is denied. The
reasons for this ruling include the following:
1.
In his motion, the plaintiff seeks an order that defendant Dr. William
H. Wolfe provide him medication for chronic constipation. Process has not been

issued to Dr. Wolfe and the court has not acquired in personam jurisdiction over
any of the defendants. Further, it has not been determined whether a legally viable
claim is asserted against Dr. Wolfe in the amended complaint. Thus, the screening
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) has not been conducted.
2.
The plaintiff alleges that he could be irreparably injured if he does not
receive his constipation medication, but he has not explained what injuries he
would suffer and has not provided medical evidence regarding his need for the
medication.
3.
The relief sought by the plaintiff would not be consistent with the
Supreme Court’s directions that “federal courts . . . afford appropriate deference and
flexibility to state officials trying to manage a volatile environment[.]” Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483 (1995). Where a plaintiff requests an injunction that
would require the court to interfere with the administration of a state prison,
“appropriate consideration must be given to principles of federalism in determining
the availability and scope of equitable relief.” Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 379
(1976). The federal courts are not overseers of the day-to-day management of
prisons. Prison officials require broad discretionary authority as the “operation of a
correctional institution is at best an extraordinarily difficult undertaking.” Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). Accordingly, prison administrators should be
accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and
practices that are needed to preserve internal order and to maintain institutional
security. Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 528 (2006); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,
527 (1979). See Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140, 1144 (10th Cir. 1998) (“it is not
the role of the federal judiciary to scrutinize and interfere with the daily operations
of a state prison[.]”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

01/09/2012
Date: _____________________
Distribution:
Joseph Taylor
No. 905002
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
All electronically registered counsel

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana