Miles v. Kentucky Department of Corrections et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell; For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: The motion for a TRO (DN 7) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Ky State Penitentiary Warden Randy White a copy of the mot ion for a preliminary injunction (DN 7). Defendant White shall file a response to the motion for a preliminary injunction (DN 7) within 14 days from entry of this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff may file a reply within 14 days of service of Defendant White's response. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Warden Randy White, Ky State Penitentiary; General Counsel, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet (ERH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
DARRELL L. MILES

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-P73-TBR

KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS et al.

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On May 13, 2016, Plaintiff, Darrell L. Miles, who is proceeding pro se, filed a motion for
a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction (DN 1) in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky. In a Memorandum Order (DN 3), the Eastern
District of Kentucky transferred the motion to this Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
because the individually-named Defendants in the motion work for the Kentucky State
Penitentiary (KSP), which is located in Western District of Kentucky, and because the events
described in the motion allegedly occurred at KSP. This motion was re-docketed as DN 7 when
the action was transferred to this Court.
In Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO and a preliminary injunction (DN 7), Plaintiff claims that
inmates and/or corrections officers at KSP have been attacking him by placing feces in his throat
while he sleeps and that prison personnel have acted with deliberate indifference to the attacks
and have failed to protect him from an ongoing risk of serious harm. Plaintiff alleges that he
“has to cover his head with a pillow case and tie a shoe string around neck to slow down the
attacks . . . .” Plaintiff also alleges that “on two separate occasions the plaintiff’s cell door was
opened and the plaintiff was sexually assaulted” and that these assaults were witnessed by two
different KSP officers. With regard to his feces allegations, the Court notes that Plaintiff has a
case pending in the Eastern District of Kentucky in which he makes similar allegations against

the inmates and officials at the two other correctional facilities where he has been most recently
housed. See Miles v. Ky. Dept. of Corr., Civil Action No. 5:15-126-JMH (E.D. Ky.). In that
case, Plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction but not a TRO.
The relief that Plaintiff seeks is a “permanent injunction to stop the attacks in the future
once plaintiff is transferred to another facility . . .” and a TRO “requiring the Correct Care
Solutions staff to arrange for an examination and plan a treatment by a qualified specialist and ‘a
mandatory injunction order’ requiring the act be performed.” Plaintiff also requests that the
Court order Defendants to stop retaliating against him for filing grievances and complaints and to
stop discouraging “the reporting and prosecution of rule violations against staff when they are
involved.” Plaintiff further asks that the Court order Defendants to stop reading his legal mail.
Plaintiff requests, “as an immediate resolution to the problem, transfer the plaintiff to ‘Kentucky
State Reformatory [KSR].’” He states that KSR is “an institution designed to meet inmate needs
in the area of psychological/psychiatric and medical care.” He also asks the Court to order the
Correct Care Solutions medical staff state-wide to give Plaintiff proper medical care in the
future.
Under Rule 65(b), a court may issue a TRO without written or oral notice to the adverse
party or its attorney only if:
specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate
and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition; and the movant’s attorney certifies in
writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be
required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A), (B). In light of the nearly identical lawsuit Plaintiff has filed against
officials at both Northpoint Training Center and Little Sandy Correctional Complex in the last
year, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not provided specific facts clearly showing that immediate

2

or irreparable injury will result before Defendants can be heard in opposition and that a TRO is,
therefore, not appropriate. However, the Court finds that a response to the motion for a
preliminary injunction is warranted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
The motion for a TRO (DN 7) is DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send KSP Warden Randy White a copy of the
motion for a preliminary injunction (DN 7).
Defendant White shall file a response to the motion for a preliminary injunction (DN 7)
within 14 days from entry of this Memorandum and Order. The response shall contain such
information as to assist this Court in determining whether a hearing on the matter is necessary.
Plaintiff may file a reply within 14 days of service of Defendant White’s response.
Date:

cc:

May 19, 2016

Plaintiff, pro se
Warden Randy White, Kentucky State Penitentiary
General Counsel, Justice & Public Safety Cabinet, Office of Legal Counsel

4413.011

3