Overstreet v. Hancock

Filing 101

ORDER denying 73 Motion for Injunctive Relief; denying 78 Motion to Relocate. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on September 7, 2012. (KM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
JOHN HOWARD OVERSTREET

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11cv245-MTP

WARDEN REGINA HANCOCK, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the court on the Plaintiff’s [73] Motion for Injunctive Relief
and Motion to Relocate [78]. Having considered the motions and the applicable law, the court
finds that the Motions [73][78] should be DENIED.
In his Motions [73][78] Plaintiff requests to be transferred from the South Mississippi
Correctional Institution, to be moved to a bottom bunk, and to be released from prison. He
claims he is mentally ill and should not be housed in the general population. He further claims
he should be assigned a bottom bunk due to side effects from his medication. Plaintiff has
previously filed several motions requesting similar relief.
A party requesting a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction must
demonstrate each of the following: 1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 2) a
substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; 3) the
threatened injury must outweigh any damage that the injunction will cause to the adverse party;
and 4) the injunction must not have an adverse effect on the public interest. Women's Med. Ctr.
of Northwest Houston v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 419 n.15 (5th Cir. 2001). “An injunction is an
extraordinary remedy and should not issue except upon a clear showing of possible irreparable
injury.” Lewis v. S.S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1121 (5th Cir. 1976).
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and

has failed to show a substantial threat that failure to grant the requested relief will result in
irreparable injury. Moreover, it is well-settled that prison officials are given wide latitude in the
day-to-day operations of the prison system, and the courts are reluctant to interfere unless
presented with substantial evidence of patently unreasonable conduct. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441
U.S. 520, 547-48 (5th Cir. 1979). The court will rarely involve itself in decisions relating to
where inmates should be housed. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983) (prisoners
have no constitutional right to be incarcerated in a certain facility or unit); Steward v. Kelly, No.
06CV1-P-B, 2006 WL 3825236, at *4 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 27, 2006); Ready v. Fleming, No. CIV.
A. 4:02-CV-056-Y, 2002 WL 1610584, at *3 (N.D. Tex. July 19, 2002). Here, Plaintiff has
failed to offer sufficient evidence that the Defendants’ actions regarding his housing and medical
treatment are patently unreasonable such that injunctive relief would be appropriate. This ruling
is not to be construed as a dismissal of the claims asserted by Plaintiff, only a denial of relief at
this stage of the proceedings.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
That Plaintiff’s Motions [73][78] for injunctive relief are DENIED.
SO ORDERED this the 7th day of September, 2012.
s/ Michael T. Parker
United States Magistrate Judge

2