Hall #219552 et al v. Woods et al
Filing
15
OPINION; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
DERRICK HALL et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 2:11-cv-57
Honorable Gordon J. Quist
JEFF WOODS et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
OPINION
This is a civil rights action brought by multiple state prisoners pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff Derrick Hall is the sole remaining Plaintiff at this stage of the case.1 Before the
Court is Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (see docket #1).
Factual Allegations
Plaintiff Derrick Hall presently is incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and is housed at the Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF), though the actions
he complains of occurred while he was housed at the Kinross Correctional Facility (KCF). He sues
Warden Jeff Woods and MDOC Director Richard McKeon.
According to the complaint, KCF has a segregation unit designed to separate
prisoners with behavioral problems from the general prison population. The segregation unit has
sixteen rooms. Eleven of those rooms are occupied by a single prisoner in each room while the
other five rooms house six inmates in each room. The six-man rooms are of the same “physical
1
The complaint also named inmates Ramon Jackson, Cortez Blake, Joseph Loving, Jeff W . Hurley and Lonnie
English-Bey as Plaintiffs. In two separate orders entered on April 21and July 8, 2011, respectively, the Court dismissed
the foregoing Plaintiffs without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (See docket ##10, 13.)
plant” as the rooms housing four prisoners in the general population unit. On an unspecified date,
Plaintiff Hall was placed in one of the six-man rooms with the other five Plaintiffs named in the
complaint.2 The six-man rooms do not have sinks, toilets, chairs, or writing surfaces. The windows
for the six-man rooms are covered so that inmates cannot see outside, and they are locked so that
fresh air is “rarely able or available to penetrate the rooms.” (Compl., docket #1, Page ID#2-3.)
Due to lack of space, Plaintiff and his cell-mates were confined to their bunks for twenty-four hours
a day, seven days per week. Because there is no sink or toilet in the room, the inmates are forced
to “kick a piece of paper under the door in order to appeal to staff to let them use the bathroom.”
(Id. at Page ID#3.) The room “reek[ed] with bodily odors” because Plaintiff and his cell-mates were
not allowed daily showers, and because they were often forced to hold their bowel movements. (Id.
at Page ID#3.) The complaint alleges that the six-man cell environment is “inhumane, dangerous
and very suffocating,” and that it has led to “numerous prisoner assaults in segregation.” (Id.)
Plaintiff Hall and the other named plaintiffs brought their concerns to Defendants
Woods and McKeon but Defendants allegedly are acting according to a “code” or policy. (Id. at
Page ID#3.) Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to cease placing six
prisoners in the same room at the KCF segregation unit. Plaintiff asserts that he and other prisoners
stand to suffer the following hardships in the absence of an injunction: (1) potential loss of life;
(2) serious physical harm; (3) “emotional and severe psychological scarring”; (4) more segregation
time if inmates “have to fight with another prisoner because of the agitation of [the six-man cell]
environment”; (5) criminal charges and a possible conviction if inmates are forced to defend
2
The complaint does not specify when or for how long Plaintiff Hall, or any of the other named plaintiffs, were
housed in the six-man cell.
-2-
themselves in the six-man cell; (6) denial of parole if inmates are given misconduct convictions for
fighting in the six-man cells. (Id. at Page ID#4-5.)
Discussion
The issuance of preliminary injunctive relief is committed to the discretion of the
district court. See Ne. Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999, 1009 (6th Cir.
2006); Nader v. Blackwell, 230 F.3d 833, 834 (6th Cir. 2000). In exercising that discretion, a court
must consider whether plaintiff has established the following elements: (1) a strong or substantial
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the likelihood of irreparable injury if the preliminary
injunction does not issue; (3) the absence of harm to other parties; and (4) the protection of the
public interest by issuance of the injunction. Id. These factors are not prerequisites to the grant or
denial of injunctive relief, but factors that must be “carefully balanced” by the district court in
exercising its equitable powers. Frisch’s Restaurant, Inc. v. Shoney’s, Inc., 759 F.2d 1261, 1263
(6th Cir. 1985); see also Ne. Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, 467 F.3d at 1009. Moreover, where
a prison inmate seeks an order enjoining state prison officials, the court is required to proceed with
the utmost care and must recognize the unique nature of the prison setting. See Glover v. Johnson,
855 F.2d 277, 284 (6th Cir. 1988); Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432 at 438, n.3, (6th Cir. 1984). The
party seeking injunctive relief bears a heavy burden of establishing that the extraordinary and drastic
remedy sought is appropriate under the circumstances. See Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban
County Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002); Stenberg v. Cheker Oil Co., 573 F.2d 921, 925 (6th
Cir. 1978); see also O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1986).
Under controlling Sixth Circuit authority, Plaintiff’s “initial burden” in demonstrating
entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief is a showing of a strong or substantial likelihood of
success on the merits of his section 1983 action. NAACP v. Mansfield, 866 F.2d 162, 167 (6th Cir.
-3-
1989). Plaintiff has not met this burden. It is not at all clear from Plaintiff’s complaint that he has
a substantial likelihood of success on his Eighth Amendment claim. Although the Court makes no
final determination on this issue, it appears at this preliminary stage that Plaintiff has not made a
substantial showing of a violation of his constitutional rights. Typically, placement in segregation
(and the loss of privileges accompanying such placement) is not, in itself, sufficient to support an
Eighth Amendment claim. To establish an Eighth Amendment claim, the prisoner must show that
he was deprived of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452
U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Restrictions that are limiting or even harsh, but are not cruel and unusual
under contemporary standards, are not unconstitutional. Id. Placement in segregation is a routine
discomfort that is “‘part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against
society.’” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9 (1992) (quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347). Moreover,
in an unpublished opinion, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an Eighth Amendment claim
similar to Plaintiff’s, which concerned the use of the six-man cells at the KCF facility. See Jasman
v. Schmidt, 4 F. App’x 233, 235-36 (6th Cir. 2001).
Second, the presence of irreparable harm is not evident. A plaintiff’s harm from the
denial of a preliminary injunction is irreparable only if it is not fully compensable by monetary
damages. See Overstreet, 305 F.3d at 578. While the complaint alleges that there is a risk of injury
to inmates placed in the six-man cells, these allegations are largely speculative. The complaint
alleges that use of the six-man cell for segregated prisoners has led to “numerous prisoner assaults
in segregation” (Compl., docket #1, Page ID#3), but it provides no further details regarding the
nature of these assaults, including when they occurred, their frequency, their severity, or the
resulting harm. The complaint does not allege that Plaintiff Hall (or any of the other prisoners in
his cell) were assaulted or threatened with harm while being held in the six-man cell. Moreover, the
-4-
risk of harm to Plaintiff in the absence of a preliminary injunction is remote because he is no longer
being housed in the six-man cell at KCF. According to MDOC records, he has been transferred to
another facility.3 Thus, the complaint fails to set forth specific facts showing an immediate, concrete
and irreparable harm to Plaintiff or others in the absence of the preliminary injunction.
Third, the interests of third parties and the public at large weigh against an injunction.
Decisions concerning prison security are vested in prison officials, in the absence of a constitutional
violation. Any interference by the federal courts in the administration of state prisons is necessarily
disruptive. The public welfare therefore militates against the issuance of extraordinary relief in the
prison context, absent a sufficient showing of a violation of constitutional rights. See Glover, 855
F.2d at 286-87. That showing has not been made here. Accordingly, the motion for preliminary
injunctive relief will be denied.
An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.
Dated: August 24, 2011
/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Plaintiff’s current place of incarceration can be found at the Offender Tracking Information System of the
Michigan Department of Corrections, which is available at http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/OTIS2/otis2.aspx.
-5-
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?