Sublett v. Bryant

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plts 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 10/14/2015. (STC)cc: COR,PLT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
DAMIEN A. SUBLETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. JUSTIN T. BRYANT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Case No.
5:15-cv-16-JMH-REW
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

***
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s motion for
preliminary injunction, [DE 7]. Plaintiff seeks an order directing
Defendants to “cease and desist any and all retaliatory action
against plaintiff for exercising his First Amendment rights to
file grievances premised on plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to
privacy as well as access to the courts.”
Plaintiff alleges that, on two occasions, female corrections
officers violated his right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment
by

staring

at

his

penis.

Plaintiff

reports

that

he

filed

grievances based on these incidents and faced discipline from
prison staff as a result.

The first incident involved Officer

Parrett, who Plaintiff alleges watched him while he urinated on
January 9, 2015. The second event alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint
involves Officer McKinney. Plaintiff claims that on March 3, 2015,
McKinney “came to his bed area and stared at his crotch while he

was lying in bed wearing only boxer shorts.”
that

he

filed

a

grievance

based

on

this

Plaintiff states
incident

and

was

disciplined for doing so on March 12, 2015.
When deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the
court

considers

four

factors:

1)

whether

the

applicant

has

demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits; 2)
whether

the

injunction;
substantially

applicant
3)

will

whether

injure

be

irreparably

issuance

the

other

of

the

interested

injured

absent

injunction
parties

an

will

(including

defendant); and 4) whether the public interest is advanced by the
issuance of the injunction.
6th Cir. 2000).
context,

the

Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 736

All of the factors are weighed, but in this

first

is

given

near-controlling

consideration.

Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th Cir. 1998)
(“[w]hen a party seeks a preliminary injunction on the basis of a
potential violation of the First Amendment, the likelihood of
success on the merits often will be the determinative factor.”)
As a threshold matter, the Court notes that prisoners wishing
to bring civil rights claims are required to exhaust all available
administrative remedies prior to filing suit in federal court.
See Morgan v. Tenn. Dept. of Corr., 92 F. App’x 302, 303 (6th Cir.
2004) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)). The prisoner bears the burden
of demonstrating that these remedies have been exhausted.
304.

Id. at

When it comes to the claim involving Officer McKinney,
2

Plaintiff has provided no documentation demonstrating that he
filed a grievance or pursued his administrative remedies in any
way.

As for the claim involving Officer Parrett, Plaintiff has

failed to allege that he exhausted his administrative remedies.
While he has provided his grievance form and his request for a
hearing, he fails to inform the court of the hearing’s outcome
(which the Court presumes was not in Plaintiff’s favor) or of any
appeal to the Warden or the Commissioner.

See DE 1-1 at Page ID

20 (Inmate Grievance Process); see also Almeida v. Yanai, 46 F.
App’x 337, 338 (6th Cir. 2002) (“To establish that he has exhausted
his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, a prisoner should
attach to his § 1983 complaint any decision demonstrating the
administrative disposition of his claims.”).

Because Plaintiff

has not shown that he exhausted his administrative remedies with
respect to his claims, he has not demonstrated a likelihood of
success on the merits.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that he would
suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction is
insufficient.
speculative—to
grievances.

The
be

relief

free

from

that

Plaintiff

retaliation

if

seeks
he

is

purely

files

future

It is well established that injunctive relief should

not issue where the claimed irreparable damage is speculative or
may never occur.

See Sharp v. Cureton, 319 F.3d 259, 272 (6th

Cir. 2003).
3

The third and fourth factors also weigh against granting an
injunction in this instance. Plaintiff asks the Court to interfere
in

the

day-to-day

operations

of

the

defendant

penological

institution by directing it, prospectively, to avoid disciplining
him for what it may determine to be frivolous complaints.

See

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987) (stating that prison
administrators and not the courts are to make the difficult
judgment concerning institutional operations).

The defendant

would be harmed and the public interest would not be served by
such an intrusion.
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy “which
should be granted only if the movant carries his or her burden of
proving that the circumstances clearly demand it.”

Overstreet v.

Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir.
2002).

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff has not met that

burden and his motion must therefore be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a
preliminary injunction, [DE 7], is hereby DENIED.
This the 14th day of October, 2015.

4