Odom v. Bolton et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 10/5/2017, re Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order. Defendants to file a fully supported response to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order within seven (7) days. Plaintiff shall re-file his motion and reply and include his signature under penalty of perjury and submit any documentary evidence within seven (7) days from service of Defendants' fully supported response. After the parties have responded, if the Court concludes that the Motion will not be denied, the Court will schedule a hearing on the motion. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Counsel (RLK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17CV-P398-CRS
MARK BOLTON et al.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Glenntorenell Odom, a pretrial detainee at the Louisville Metro Department of
Corrections (LMDC), filed the instant pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the
complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he reported to LMDC officers that another inmate had been
attacked by other inmates. He stated that he was later placed in the same dorm with one of the
attackers despite placing conflicts against the attackers to avoid being housed with them.
Plaintiff stated that he was assaulted by one of the attackers resulting in injury. He also
maintained that he continued to receive threats from other inmates. Upon initial review of the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court allowed Plaintiff’s failure-to-protect claims
to proceed against Defendants Mark Bolton, Ofc. Pinnick, Ofc. Berry, Ofc. Wiggins, Ofc.
Elmore, Ofc. Harmon, Ofc. Troutman, and Steve Flener in their individual capacities. This
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and/or temporary
restraining order (DN 11).
In the motion, Plaintiff argues that he is in imminent danger of harm. He states that since
filing the complaint, “ofc. Harmon and several other defendants and regular staff are repeatedly
coming to plaintiff’s cell demanding that the plaintiff ‘accept his plea bargain because s**t will
only get worse.” He asserts that the inmate who attacked him is now back in LMDC. He states,
“Said attacker is telling HUNDREDS of inmates that plaintiff is a ‘rat’ and he ‘told’ on him and
others  that beat the victim into a coma and now a wheelchair for the rest of his life.” He states
that he has been in solitary confinement for 17 months to avoid being placed in the general
population “where some of the attackers are, some the attacker’s gang members are, and some of
the attackers’s family members are.” He requests to be transferred to a low or medium security
dorm or the Community Corrections Center (CCC).
Defendants filed a response (DN 15) to the motion. They deny that Plaintiff is under
imminent danger or will suffer irreparable harm. They state the following:
The Plaintiff had been separated from the general population after his initial
altercation with another inmate. He was segregated and then refused to be placed
back into the general population. He is not in solitary confinement, but in
administrative segregation, which means he is in a single cell. The fact that he
does not wish to be placed in the general population complicates the choices for
his placement. The Plaintiff has been in administrative segregation since
August 24, 2017, but has been in a single cell since his altercation in order to
eliminate his fears that he will be attacked if held in the general population.
Defendants also maintain that Plaintiff cannot be transferred to CCC because he has been
charged with a crime which does not permit him to be placed there. They further state, “The
Defendants are investigating Plaintiff’s complaints of being harassed and threatened by other
inmates. Until those complaints can be verified, the Plaintiff is being kept safe by being placed
in administrative segregation.” Defendants also deny that there have been suggestions that
Plaintiff accept a plea bargain.
Plaintiff filed a reply (DN 21) to Defendants’ response stating that he “constantly
receives threats/actions from inmates, Correctional Officers and Defendants. Which, all these
incidents have been caught and recorded on camera.” He further states as follows:
Inmates are throwing urine and feces on Plaintiff or, under Plaintiff cell door.
Inmates are jamming their single cell door coming out when Plaintiff is out on his
one hour recreation time, to do bodily harm to Plaintiff. When Plaintiff is being
transfer to and from court, Plaintiff has to be placed into a holding cell with
general population inmates. Were, Plaintiff has been gang by his attacker
members, on more than one occasion.
Plaintiff argues that Defendants “simply do not care, about Plaintiffs safety.” He also states that
“Defendants counsel seem to have the facts mixed up about, Plaintiff housing. Plaintiffs been
housed in Administrative segregation since late June, 2016.” He states that he was attacked by
the other inmate in July of 2016 while he was housed in administrative segregation. Plaintiff
reports that Defendants tried to transfer him back to general population in July 2017 but that he
refused because he believed his safety was at risk. Defendants then issued him a disciplinary
report for refusing to follow orders, and Plaintiff was again placed in administrative segregation
in August 2017.
Plaintiff states, “Administrative segregation is the same thing as solitary confinement and
S.O.R.T. They all get the same privilege and there all on 23 hour lock down with one hour out
for recreation.” He asserts that “S.O.R.T. inmates are a high risk to security of the jail. S.O.R.T.
inmates fight correctional officers and are known to get caught with jail made knives.
Defendants house everyone together even Protective Custody inmates.” Plaintiff also argues that
he could be placed in CCC and identifies two inmates who have the same charges as him who
are housed in CCC.
The Court is concerned about the seriousness of Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the risks
to his safety while housed in administrative segregation. Defendants’ response is not supported
by affidavits or any other certified records or documentary evidence. However, Plaintiff’s
motion and reply are not signed under penalty of perjury and are, therefore, unverified. Because
both sides have made unsupported allegations, the Court is not able to determine if a hearing is
necessary at this time. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants shall file a fully supported response to the motion for
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order within 7 days of the entry date of this
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall re-file his motion and reply and
include his signature under penalty of perjury and submit any documentary evidence within
7 days from service of Defendants’ fully supported response.
After the parties have responded, if the Court concludes that the motion will not be
denied, the Court will schedule a hearing on the motion.
October 5, 2017
C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
Plaintiff, pro se
Counsel of record
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?