Young v. LeBlanc et al
Filing
39
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's 33 objections are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's 28 Partial Report and Recommendation are ADOPTED as the Court's opinion, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 3/8/2019.(jls)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHAEL YOUNG
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 17-6329
JAMES LEBLANC, ET. AL.
SECTION: “B”(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are Plaintiff Michael Young’s Second Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Preliminary Injunction
(Rec.
Doc.
25),
Magistrate
Judge’s
Partial
Report
and
Recommendation (Rec. Doc. 28), and Plaintiff’s objections (Rec.
Doc. 33). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED and
the
Magistrate
Judge’s
Partial
Report
and
Recommendation
are ADOPTED as the Court’s opinion.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff is a state inmate housed in B.B. Sixty Rayburn
Correctional Center. See Rec. Doc. 28 at 1; Rec. Doc. 33 at 1. He
filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against
Defendants 1, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. See Rec.
Doc. Nos. 1, 4, 7. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that after
1 The Defendants are: Department of Corrections Secretary James LeBlanc, Warden
Sandy McCain, Warden Robert Tanner, Assistant Warden Keith Bickham, Assistant
Warden Beverly Kelly, Colonel Craig Kennedy, Major Jeff Williams, Major Tim
Crawford, Captain Ronnie Seal, Social Worker Gina Todd, Specialist Amy Stogner,
and Correctional Officer Jules Hebert.
1
he
filed
a
Prison
Rape
Elimination
Act
Complaint
against
Defendant Officer Jules Hebert in 2015, Defendant Hebert labeled
him a “snitch” to the other inmates. See Rec. Doc. 16 at 2; Rec.
Doc. 4 at 11.
Furthermore, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant-
Correctional Officers refuse to adequately protect him from
assaults by other inmates and retaliatory harassment by certain
prison officials. See Rec. Doc. 4 at 11; Rec. Doc. 28 at 2.
On August 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for TRO and
preliminary injunction, claiming that he made numerous requests
to Defendants for transfer to another facility or additional
protection from the assaults of other inmates. See Rec. Doc. 9 at
1-3. On September 22, 2017, Magistrate Judge Roby reviewed the
motion and recommended it be denied. See Rec. Doc. 14. On October
11, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections. See Rec. Doc. 16. On
November 29, 2017, this Court issued its Order and Reasons
adopting the report and recommendation. See Rec. Doc. 18.
On September 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant motion
for TRO and preliminary injunction, arguing the same contentions
he
argued
in
his
previous
motion
for
TRO
and
preliminary
injunction. See Rec. Doc. 25. On September 4, 2018, Magistrate
Judge Roby again recommended that the motion be denied. See Rec.
Doc. 28. On September 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to
the partial report and recommendation. See Rec. Doc. 33.
2
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. TRO and Preliminary Injunction
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 65, a party
seeking temporary and preliminary injunctions must allege specific
facts and show that he will suffer immediate and irreparable harm.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 65. To obtain a TRO or preliminary injunction
the applicant must establish: (1) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that the party
will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3)
the movant’s substantial injury outweighs any possible damage to
the nonmovant party; and (4) the grant of the injunction is in the
public interest. See Moore v. Brown, 868 F.3d 398, 402-03 (5th
Cir. 2017); Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009).
A movant must carry the burden of persuasion on all four elements.
See Heil Trailer Int’l Co. v. Kula, 542 Fed. App’x 329, 331 (5th
Cir. 2013); Voting for Am., Inc. v. Steen, 732 F.3d 382, 386 (5th
Cir. 2013); Texas
Med. Providers Performing Abortion Servs. v.
Lakey, 667 F.3d 570, 574 (5th Cir. 2012).
The party seeking an injunction must show that he will suffer
both imminent and irreparable harm absent the injunction. See FED.
R. CIV. P. 65. The Fifth Circuit has held that except in those
exceptional
cases
to
prevent
clear
and
imminent
irreparable
injury, the courts will not issue an injunction. See Heath v. City
of New Orleans, 320 F. Supp. 545, 546
3
(E.D.
La.
1970), aff'd,
435 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1971). A party may not assert speculative
arguments.
Mere
speculation
of
an
irreparable
injury
is
insufficient. See Holland Am. Ins. Co. v. Succession of Roy, 777
F.2d
992,
997
(5th
Cir.
1985)
(“Speculative
injury
is
not
sufficient; there must be more than an unfounded fear on the part
of the applicant.”); see also Monumental Task Comm., Inc. v. Foxx,
157 F. Supp. 3d 573, 583 (E.D. La 2016); Hanna v. Lynn 1993 U.S.
App. LEXIS 39363 *2 (5th Cir. Sept. 22, 1993). Therefore, an
injunction will not be issued “simply to prevent the possibility
of some remote future injury.” Monumental Task Comm., Inc., 157 F.
Supp. 3d at 583. The injury must be actual and imminent, not based
off of conjecture or theoretical hypotheticals.
Courts have repeatedly recognized the delicate nature of
issuing injunctions that are requested in the prison setting.
Specifcally,
federal
courts,
due
to
judicial
restraint,
reluctantly interfere with matters dealing with prison operations.
See Smith v. Bingham, 914 F.2d 740, 742 (5th Cir. 1990). Federal
courts give a range of deference to the decisions of prison
administrators
when
it
pertains
to
matters
of
prison
administration, including discipline and the status of inmates.
See id.
The issuance of temporary and preliminary injunctions “is
an extraordinary and drastic remedy.” Harris County v. Carmax Auto
Superstores Inc., 177 F.3d 306, 312 (5th Cir. 1999); White v.
Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir. 1989). In other words,
4
injunctions should not be issued as ordinary practice, but only
when the movant meets the burden of persuasion. See Harris County,
177 F.3d at 312.
B. Plaintiff Fails to Meet Burden
Upon review of the record, this Court finds that Plaintiff
again fails to carry his burden. Specifically, he fails to show
that he will suffer an irreparable injury or that an irreparable
injury is imminent. Plaintiff, without any proof, argues that he
has suffered serious harm and at a substantial risk of one of the
inmates “harming or killing [him].” See Rec. Doc. 33 at 8. The
Court acknowledges that Plaintiff has submitted letters attached
to his pleadings that show each of his complaints to the prison
were addressed and investigated by prison officials. See Rec. Doc.
25. However, Plaintiff has not produced any medical reports,
incident reports, nor any evidence to support his mere conclusory
statements that he is being assaulted by other inmates and that
Defendants are failing to do anything about it.
Despite the fact that Plaintiff is in a one-man cell already,
Plaintiff asserts a fear of being returned to general population
and being attacked by other inmates. As courts have repeatedly
held, an injunction will not be granted for speculative concerns
or fears that are not imminent and actual. See Monumental Task
Comm., Inc., 157 F. Supp. 3d at 583. Thus, Plaintiff’s concerns of
being retaliated against or attacked in the future are speculative.
5
Furthermore, as the Magistrate Judge noted, the prison officials
have already told him that they will provide additional protection
if he reports specific activity with an identified enemy. See Rec.
Doc. 28 at 5. This Court, in its previous Order and Reasons found
that Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendants will allow the other
inmates to kill him because Defendants have constantly failed to
protect him is also speculative. See Rec. Doc. 18 at 7. Therefore,
Plaintiff has again failed to establish that he will suffer an
imminent and irreparable injury if his motion is not granted. The
Magistrate Judge’s report and her prior Order and Reasons denying
the TRO and preliminary injunction are supported by the record and
law. See Rec. Doc. Nos. 18, 28.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 8th day of March, 2019.
___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?