ISBY-ISRAEL v. LEMMON et al
Filing
10
Entry Discussing Selected Matters - granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/13/2012. (RSF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
AARON ISBY-ISRAEL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRUCE LEMMON, Commissioner of
IDOC, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:12-cv-116-JMS-MJD
Entry Discussing Selected Matters
I.
The plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis [2] is granted. The
assessment of even an initial partial filing fee is not feasible at this time.
II.
“[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). Requests for
temporary restraining orders are governed by the same general standards that
govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin
W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977).
In his motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction,
the plaintiff seeks an order compelling prison authorities to release him from the
administrative segregation unit at the state prison where he is incarcerated. He
seeks this action because of his certainty that the duration of his confinement in
that unit and the conditions of his confinement in such unit violate his federally
secured rights.
The plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction [3] is denied. The reasons for this ruling include the following:
1.
“Although there are very many varieties of prisons with different
degrees of security, we must realize that in many of them the inmates are closely
supervised and their activities controlled around the clock. Guards and inmates coexist in direct and intimate contact. Tension between them is unremitting.
Frustration, resentment, and despair are commonplace.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539, 562 (1974). As noted herein and recently found pivotal in Westefer v. Neal,
2012 WL 2017967 (7th Cir. June 6, 2012), the complexities and the different views
on which housing unit operates under which protocols, and how successfully, are
precisely why this court’s intervention is problematic.
2.
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,
418 U.S. at 566. Accordingly, prison administrators should be accorded wideranging 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[.]”). As noted in Fox v. Rodgers, 2009 WL 891719 (E.D.Mich. 2009), any
injunction issued against prison officials dealing with the day-to-day operation of
the prison system may cause substantial harm to both public and private interests.
3
Process has not been issued to any of the defendants and the court has
not acquired in personam jurisdiction over any of the defendants.
4.
It has not been determined whether a legally viable claim is asserted
in the complaint. The screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) has not been
completed.
5.
If the complaint fails to state a viable claim for relief, the action will be
dismissed, see Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910, 921 (2007)(pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)("[a] complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the
allegations, taken as true, show that plaintiff is not entitled to relief"), and there
would be no case or controversy sufficient to support exercise of the court’s limited
jurisdiction.
6.
Additionally, a preliminary injunction involving conditions of
confinement at a prison must be “narrowly drawn, extend[ ] no further than
necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive
means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. §
3626(a)(1)(A). The motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction seeks relief of such scope that it is highly unlikely this statutory
command could be satisfied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
06/13/2012
Date: __________________
Distribution:
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
AARON ISBY-ISRAEL
892219
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
P.O. Box 1111
CARLISLE, IN 47838
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?