Autin v. Cooley et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion for Copies; denying 25 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 25 Motion for Hearing; denying 25 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Clerk sent plaintiff one copy of doc. 20 and an invoice for the cost of additional copies). Signed by Magistrate Judge Kathleen Kay on 3/25/2018. (crt,Haik, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

TROY ADAM AUTIN
DOC # 452745

:

DOCKET NO. 17-cv-1035
SECTION P

VERSUS

:

CHIEF JUDGE HICKS

TERRY COOLEY, ET AL.

:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the court is a letter [doc. 25] from Autin related to his pending pro se civil rights
suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Autin is an inmate in the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
Corrections and is currently incarcerated at Rayburn Correctional Center in Angie, Louisiana.
In the letter, Autin requests copies of his amended complaint for the purpose of complying
with our order directing service of that pleading. See doc. 24. He also renews his motion to appoint
counsel [doc. 21] and requests preliminary injunctive relief in the form of an order directing the
Rayburn Correctional Center’s medical department to send him to a specialist. Doc. 25.
Autin states that he provided the court with his only copy of the amended complaint, and
indicates that he is unable to comply with this court’s service order. Doc. 25. He also shows that
Rayburn Correctional Center has denied a recent request for copies, limiting him to three rather
than the seven he requested. Doc. 25, att. 1. He asks for a hearing on this request. Doc. 25.
Plaintiffs in a civil rights action are still required to pay litigation costs, including copy
fees, regardless of whether they have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Miller v.
Louisiana, 2011 WL 6300559, at *3 (W.D. La. Dec. 15, 2011). A plaintiff is only entitled to free

-1-

copies of the record in his case for good cause shown. Id. Autin’s allegation that he provided the
court with his sole copy of the amended complaint is sufficient cause for the clerk to provide him
with one free copy of that pleading [doc. 20]. To the extent that Autin requires additional copies
beyond what Rayburn Correctional Center will provide, however, he must contact the clerk and
arrange to pay the fee for those copies or else write them out by hand. Accordingly, his request for
copies is GRANTED IN PART, in that the clerk is directed to provide him with ONE COPY of
the amended complaint [doc. 20] without charge, and DENIED in all other respects. As Autin has
not shown what facts might be brought to light in a hearing on this claim or how they might impact
our decision, his request for a hearing is DENIED.
Autin’s previous request for counsel was denied as premature, based in part on the fact that
defendants had not been served and no answer had been filed. Doc. 22. That is still the case, and
so his renewed request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Finally, Autin requests preliminary injunctive relief in the form of a court order to Rayburn
Correctional Center that he receive outside medical care. Doc. 25. He complains of pain in his
neck and spine, apparently related to the alleged attack at Allen Correctional Center that forms the
basis of this suit. See doc. 20. All of Autin’s claims in the instant action relate to events at Allen
Correctional Center and all of the defendants are employees of Allen Correctional Center. Id. He
has, as yet, made no claim based on his medical care at Rayburn Correctional Center or against
the employees at that facility.
Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy, and the movant carries a heavy
burden in showing a need for its issuance. Sepulvado v. Jindal, 729 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2013).
To obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must demonstrate all of the following: (1) a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that he will suffer irreparable

-2-

injury if the injunction is denied; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the
injunction might cause the defendant; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public
interest. PCI Transp., Inc. v. Fort Worth & Western R. Co., 418 F.3d 535, 545 (5th Cir. 2005).
This court has no jurisdiction to order injunctive relief against a non-party, even assuming that
Autin could meet his burden on all of the above four elements. See, e.g., Garrett v. Stephens, 2015
WL 1390781, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2015). Accordingly, the request for injunctive relief is
DENIED, without prejudice to Autin’s right to request such relief in any suit against Rayburn
Correctional Center employees.
THUS DONE this 25th day of March, 2018.

-3-