John v. Woods et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 42 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision re 40 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion to be Housed in Concordia Parish Correctional Facility or Elton City Jail. (Clerk mailed a copy of doc. 28 to plaintiff on 11/13/17 as ordered.) Signed by Judge Donald E Walter on 11/13/2017. (crt,Haik, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION
* CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-1701
* JUDGE WALTER
IVY J. WOODS, ET AL.
* MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY
Before the Court is an Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying the appointment of
counsel, combined with a Motion to be Housed in Concordia Parish Correctional Facility or Elton
City Jail (Rec. Doc. 42), filed by the plaintiff, Mayson John (“John”). Insofar as John challenges
the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying appointment of counsel, the Court hereby finds that the
Order is neither contrary to law nor clearly erroneous; therefore, the Order (Rec. Doc. 40) is hereby
AFFIRMED. As to John’s remaining requests, the Motion (Rec. Doc. 42) is hereby DENIED IN
PART and GRANTED IN PART, for the reasons that follow.
John is currently housed at Concordia Parish Correctional Facility (“CPCF”) in Ferriday,
Louisiana as a pretrial detainee. John moves the Court to issue an Order that he be housed in CPCF
or Elton City Jail (“ECJ”) for the duration of his “pretrial” incarceration, to prevent Warden Dustin
Locke (“Locke”) from retaliating against him because John filed suit against Locke. 1 Rec. Docs.
42, 44. The Court construes this as a request for a preliminary injunction to prevent his transfer to
John filed suit in the instant case against Dustin Locke (“Locke”), the warden of Jefferson Davis Parish Jail. Rec.
Doc. 1. Locke was dismissed as a defendant in the instant suit as the Court found that John’s claims against him were
frivolous and failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
and (ii). Rec. Doc. 22. John has since filed a new complaint against, inter alia, Locke and the Jefferson Davis Parish
Jail alleging retaliation for John’s filing of the instant suit. John v. Locke, et al., 2:17-cv-1226.
Jefferson Davis Parish Jail under Warden Locke. A party requesting such relief must demonstrate
each of the following:
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial
threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, (3) that the
threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that
will result if the injunction is granted, and (4) that the injunction will
not disserve the public interest.
Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 595 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442,
445 (5th Cir. 2009)). John has not established any of these requirements. John has not shown that
there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; indeed his request for injunctive relief
appears to be unrelated to his claims against the remaining defendant in this case, Gerald Cox.
Further, John makes no showing of a potential threat or injury other than to state generally that he
anticipates Locke will retaliate against him. See Rec. Docs. 42, 44. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES John’s request for an order requiring that he be housed in CPCF or ECJ.
In the instant motion, John also requests a copy of Defendant Cox’s Answer to his
Complaint (Rec. Doc. 44, p. 2); said request is hereby GRANTED.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Rec. Doc. 40) denying appointment of counsel
is hereby AFFIRMED; John’s Motion to be Housed in CPCF or ECJ (Rec. Doc. 42) is DENIED
insofar as John requests that this Court prevent his transfer to Jefferson Davis Parish Jail and
GRANTED insofar as John requests a copy of Defendant Gerald Cox’s Answer (Rec. Doc. 28).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to mail a copy of Defendant
Gerald Cox’s Answer (Rec. Doc. 28) to the plaintiff, Mayson John.
Shreveport, Louisiana, this13th day of November, 2017.
DONALD E. WALTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?