Bruce v. Terrell et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay on 1/2/2014. (crt,Gregory, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

ROBERT FRANKLIN BRUCE

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-2779

VS.

:

JUDGE MINALDI

TERRY TERRELL, ET AL

:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is the motion for preliminary injunction [doc. 9] filed ex parte by
plaintiff Robert Franklin Bruce (hereafter, “plaintiff”). Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of
the State of Louisiana, and he is housed at Allen Correctional Center (hereafter, “ACC”) in
Kinder, Louisiana. Plaintiff names various ACC administrators and employees as defendants.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is serving a ten-year prison sentence for theft. Doc. 9, p. 1. He was housed at
two other facilities before being moved to ACC in October of 2011. Id. at 1–2. When plaintiff
arrived at ACC he brought eight bags of legal documents and medical records with him. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff alleges that he was provided the standard two lockers in which to store all of his
belongings but, due to the amount of legal documents in his possession, he was provided a third
locker. Id.
According to plaintiff, the third locker was taken away “about eight months” before the
filing of this motion. Doc. 10, p. 1. He claims that this action was in retaliation for filing
administrative complaints and writing letters to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Id. He states
that after the locker was taken away, he stored the excess documents under his mattress. Id.

-1-

Plaintiff next claims that after he filed another administrative complaint, he was told that
he could no longer store the documents under his mattress. Id. at 1–2. Plaintiff further alleges
that he was told by a Major Vick (who is not a defendant herein) that he had until November 3,
2013. to remove the documents under his mattress or they would be confiscated. Id. Finally,
plaintiff claims that his request for a third locker was refused. Id.
Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction on November 4, 2013, one day after his
the deadline to remove the documents. Doc. 9. Plaintiff asks this court to order the defendants
not to dispose of his legal documents and to provide plaintiff a third locker in which to store
them. We note that the allegations of plaintiff’s underlying complaint in this suit are unrelated to
his claims for injunctive relief. 1
II. LAW & ANALYSIS
A litigant moving for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order must
demonstrate each of the following: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a
substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; (3) the
threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction will cause to the adverse party; and
(4) the injunction will not have an adverse effect on the public interest. Womens Med. Ctr. of
N.W. Houston v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 418–20 (5th Cir. 2001). An injunction is an extraordinary
remedy and should not issue except upon a clear showing of possible irreparable harm. Lewis v.
S.S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1121 (5th Cir. 1976).
In the instant case, plaintiff failed to show that he is entitled to injunctive relief. First, we
note that the request for relief is moot because plaintiff’s deadline for removing the documents
1

Plaintiff’s complaint seeks damages for inadequate medical care following a fall in the ACC dining area. Doc. 1,
pp. 6–8. Plaintiff further complains that he has been denied access to the courts because ACC’s law library does not
accommodate prisoners with vision problems such as plaintiff. Id. at 8–9. Finally, plaintiff seeks damages from
exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke. See doc. 1 pp. 9–10.
-2-

had already passed by the time he filed the motion. The court is unable to prevent a seizure and
removal of plaintiff’s excess documents that has already taken place. See, e.g., Ayers v.
Coughlin, 780 F.2d 205, 210 (2d. Cir. 1985) (prisoner’s request for injunctive relief from stay in
solitary confinement was rendered moot as prisoner had already been released when motion was
filed).
Nevertheless, assuming that the documents are still in plaintiff’s possession, plaintiff still
fails to demonstrate that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury. Plaintiff
does not specify what documents were threatened to be taken from him, whether such documents
bear any relation to his underlying claims for relief in this suit, or how the loss of such
documents would prejudice his case. In other words, plaintiff does not show how he would
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. His request for injunctive relief is
therefore denied.
Moreover, we consider the decision regarding whether and to what extent inmates are
provided lockers to be a matter of internal prison administration. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.
520 (1979). The court will not interfere with the internal management of prison affairs absent a
clear showing that a constitutional violation has taken place. Id.; see also Ruiz v. Estelle, 679
F.2d 1115, 1145 (5th Cir. 1982), modified, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982); Sampson v. King, 693
F.2d 566 (5th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff has not shown that the decision not to provide him with an
extra locker rose to the level of a constitutional violation.
We note that plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and therefore
his complaint is currently under preliminary review as mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to
determine, prior to service of the complaint on defendants, whether the complaint is frivolous or
malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against

-3-

a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). At present, plaintiff’s
claims lack the specificity necessary to determine whether plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits. Should the court after initial review determine that some amendment to the
pleadings may be in order to more clearly set forth a claim for relief, then plaintiff will be
advised accordingly.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
injunction, [doc. 9], is DENIED.
THUS DONE this 2nd day of January, 2014.

-4-