Payne v. ACA et al

Filing 57

ORDER adopting 52 Report and Recommendation; denying 38 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 38 Motion for TRO. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 8/1/2012. (AC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
DAVID E. PAYNE

PLAINTIFF

v.

CAUSE NO. 3:11-CV-389-CWR-FKB

AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court are the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation on that motion, and the plaintiff’s objection to the Report and
Recommendation. Docket Nos. 38, 52, 56. After considering the pleadings and applicable law, the
objection will be overruled, the Report and Recommendation will be adopted, and the motion for
injunctive relief will be denied.
I.

Background
David E. Payne is an inmate held in the custody of the Mississippi Department of

Corrections. Docket No. 8. In June 2011, he filed a complaint alleging that a variety of defendants
had violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, various Amendments to the United
State Constitution, the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, and several other federal and state
statutes. Docket No. 1. The substance of his complaint regarded the conditions of his confinement.
Docket No. 8.
II.

Discussion
In April 2012, Payne moved for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction

asking the Court to halt the animosity, retaliation, extortion, and other harms he allegedly
experiences at the hands of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and then place him into the
witness protection program. Docket No. 38, at 1-3. He also sought, among several other things, a
decision on his requests for conditional medical release and an Order protecting his legal records
and legal mail. Id. at 2-4. The Magistrate Judge found that Payne’s motion met none of the four
requirements for injunctive relief, then recommended that the motion be denied. Docket No. 52.
After successfully requesting an extension of time to object, Payne filed his objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s findings. Docket No. 56. He argues that the Magistrate Judge and other judicial
officers have committed misconduct and conspired to deprive him of his rights, because he has in

fact proven all four elements required for injunctive relief. Id. at 1-3. Payne next contends that the
Magistrate Judge erred by entering a Report and Recommendation without the benefit of a response
from the defendants. Id. at 3. He closes by charging an array of persons and institutions with a
variety of unlawful acts. Id. at 5-6.
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. It should only be granted if the
movant has clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four . . . prerequisites. The decision to
grant a preliminary injunction is to be treated as the exception rather than the rule.” Mississippi
Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985) (setting out the
four elements). Under this standard, Payne has not shown that he is entitled to an injunction. See
id. Among other reasons, the evidence is not clear, much less substantially likely, that Payne will
prevail on the merits of his suit. Further, any threat to him is outweighed by the harm and cost the
defendants and the public would incur by moving Payne into witness protection or granting
conditional medical release.
Finally, the Magistrate Judge has not erred by issuing a Report and Recommendation without
the benefit of the Department of Corrections’ response. The movant bears the burden to prove an
entitlement to injunctive relief. Id. at 622. Payne’s motion did not meet that burden. He is not
entitled to an injunction by default.
III.

Conclusion
Having considered Payne’s objection, the Court finds that it should be overruled and that the

Report and Recommendation should be adopted as the finding of this Court. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 52] is
adopted and the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief [Docket No. 38] is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 1st day of August, 2012.
s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2