Huskey v. Fisher et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 14 Motion for TRO. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 2/27/2018. (jla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
MATTHEW HUSKEY

PLAINTIFF

v.

No. 1:17CV140-SA-JMV

MARSHALL FISHER, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This matter comes before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining
order or, in the alternative, for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff is an inmate currently
housed at the Wilkinson County Correctional Facility. The plaintiff seeks an order from the court
requiring: (1) defendant Hall to arrange for the plaintiff to have a physical examination and to
stop harassment from officers; (2) the defendants to ensure that his food is not contaminated; (3)
the defendants to refer him to an outside physician; and (4) the defendants to place him in the
Maximum Security Unit (“MSU”) at Unit 720 at the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility.
For the reasons set forth below, the instant motion will be denied.
Preliminary Injunctions
Both temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are governed by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65. Though the same criteria govern the issuance of preliminary injunctions and
temporary restraining orders, the purpose and form of relief differ for each. The purpose of a
preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo during the course of litigation until the court
can hold a trial on the matter. Steven S. Gensler, 1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and
Commentary Rule 65, Practice Commentary; Univ. of Tex. V. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101
S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981). When adjudicating a preliminary injunction, the court must

provide notice to all parties and give them a chance to be heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Once
issued, a preliminary injunction stays in effect until the court grants final relief or otherwise
modifies the order. Steven S. Gensler, 1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and
Commentary Rule 65, Practice Commentary. Once the court issues final relief, the preliminary
injunction dissolves, as the court need no longer rely on its equitable powers to provide interim
relief. 11A, Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2947 (3d ed.);
U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010). A ruling on a
preliminary injunction is immediately appealable:
[T]he courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction over appeals from . . . [i]nterlocutory
orders of the district courts of the United States . . . granting, continuing, modifying,
refusing, or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions . . . .
28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(a)(1).
Temporary Restraining Orders
Similarly, the purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo and
prevent irreparable harm, but only until the court can hold an adversarial hearing for a
preliminary injunction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(3), Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of
Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda County, 415 U.S. 423, 438-439, 94
S.Ct. 1113 (1974). Thus, a temporary restraining order may be granted ex parte, but it only lasts
for 14 days (28 days if the court permits, with a showing of good cause). Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2).
Ex parte temporary restraining orders are disfavored, and courts seldom grant them. Steven S.
Gensler, 1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Rule 65, Practice
Commentary. Once the court rules on a motion for preliminary injunction, then the temporary
restraining order has served its purpose and should be dissolved. Granny Goose, 415 U.S. at 443.
Neither party may appeal a district court’s ruling on a temporary restraining order, as it has an
-2-

extremely limited duration. Chicago United Industries, Ltd. V. City of Chicago, 445 F.3d 940,
943 (7th Cir. 2006). However, once the district court rules on a motion for preliminary injunction
regarding the issue, the parties may appeal that order. Northeast Ohio Coalition for Homeless
Service Employees Intern. Union, Local 1199 v. Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999, 1005 (6th Cir. 2006).
Elements of Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunctive Relief
A party must prove four elements to be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief or a
temporary restraining order: (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 to the
movant outweighs any harm that may result from the injunction to the non-movant; and (4) that the
injunction will not disserve the public interest. DSC Communications Corp. v. DGI
Technologies, Inc., 81 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir. 1996); Rodriguez v. United States, 66 F.3d 95, 97 (5th
Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1058, 134 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1996); Cherokee Pump & Equipment,
Inc. v. Aurora Pump, 38 F.3d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 1994); Doe v. Duncanville Independent School
District, 994 F.2d 160, 163 (5th Cir. 1993); Plains Cotton Co-op Association v. Goodpasture
Computer Serv., Inc., 807 F.2d 1256, 1259 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 821, 108 S. Ct. 80, 98
L. Ed. 2d 42 (1987); Canal Authority of Florida v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974).
Preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders are extraordinary remedies,
Cherokee Pump, 38 F.3d at 249, “not to be granted routinely, but only when the movant, by a clear
showing, carries [the] burden of persuasion.” Black Fire Fighters Association v. City of Dallas,
905 F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Holland American Insurance Co. v. Succession of Roy,
777 F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir. 1985)); Cherokee Pump, 38 F.3d at 249 (quoting Mississippi Power &
Light v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985)) (“The decision to grant a
-3-

preliminary injunction is to be treated as the exception rather than the rule”). Under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 65, the party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order must give security
in an amount the court deems proper (which can be zero in some circumstances).
Analysis
Mr. Huskey alleges in the instant motion that inmates and officers contaminate his food
with semen and other substances – and that the contamination causes nausea and vomiting. He
also alleges cameras record his every move and sound – and that inmates and others know what he
is doing, as he is doing it. He also believes that the cameras stream the video to a hospital and to
a facebook page. Mr. Huskey alleges that he has been moved several times to different locations
and facilities, but, no matter where he is housed, cameras record his every action – and the inmates
and guards contaminate his food. Though various prison staff members have searched for
cameras, they have not found any. Similarly, members of prison staff have investigated whether
Mr. Huskey’s food is contaminated but have found no contaminants. He has been examined by
doctors and given medication for stomach problems, but medical personnel have denied his
requests to examine the contents of his stomach to identify the contaminant Mr. Huskey believes to
be there.
Mr. Huskey testified at his Spears hearing that at least one doctor has diagnosed him as
suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Despite this diagnosis, Mr. Huskey refuses all medication
to treat the condition because he does not believe anything is wrong with him. As the Magistrate
Judge stated in her Report and Recommendation, though it is certainly possible that inmates and
guards might contaminate another inmate’s food, the chances of that same problem occurring at all
facilities in which he is housed are “vanishingly small.” Likewise, it is beyond belief that, no
-4-

matter where Mr. Huskey is housed, cameras record his every move and transmit the images and
sounds to offsite monitoring stations.
Given Mr. Huskey’s diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, as well as the extremely low
probability that the cameras and food contamination exist across every facility in which Mr.
Huskey has been housed, he cannot demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits
of this case. As such, he has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on his
claim, and the instant motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this, the 27th day of February, 2018.
/s/ Sharion Aycock______
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-