Caston v. Harris et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 20 Judgment. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 6/28/12. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
CASEY J. CASTON

PLAINTIFF

v.

No. 4:12CV32-A-V

WARDEN JOANNE HARRIS, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the court is the motion of the plaintiff Casey J. Caston for a temporary restraining
order or, in the alternative, for preliminary injunctive relief. The plaintiff is a state inmate
currently housed at Washington County Regional Correctional Facility. The plaintiff seeks an
order from the court (1) requiring the defendants to take him to the County Law Library at least
two times per month, and (2) to transfer him to a facility other than the Washington County
Regional Correctional Facility. For the reasons set forth below, the instant motion will be
denied.
It is well settled that a party must prove four elements to be entitled to preliminary
injunctive relief: (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). This court pays more than lip service to the axiom that a preliminary
injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Cherokee Pump, 38 F.3d at 249. It is “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 preliminary injunction is to be
treated as the exception rather than the rule”).
In the present case, Caston has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits in light of his argument. As to his alleged lack of access to a legal library, he has not
alleged that such limited access has caused prejudice to his legal position. Indeed, he has filed
adequate pleadings in this case, and his claims are clearer than most pro se submissions to the
court.
In addition, though he has made the bare allegation that he is in danger of retribution
from unnamed guards at the Washington County Regional Correctional Facility, he has alleged
no facts to support such an allegation. It is commonplace for prisoners filing suits against prison
staff to remain housed in the same prison. Indeed, if the court were to move prisoners based
upon such minimal allegations, prisoners would surely use such claims in federal suits in an
attempt to move where they choose. In addition to subjecting prison housing assignments to the
whims of prisoners (rather than the security needs of the various institutions), the number of suits
would grow as a result. Section 1983 was drafted to provide a mechanism for redress for

-2-

grievances against state governments, not as a convenient vehicle for prisoners to choose their
own housing assigments. As such, the plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood that he
will prevail on his claim, which must, therefore, fail.
In sum, the instant motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction will
be denied. A judgment consistent with this opinion will issue today.
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of June, 2012.

/s/ Sharion Aycock
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-