Jones v. Huffman-Phillips et al

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 6 MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Plaintiff Eugene Kenneth Jones motion is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 10/1/12. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
EUGENE KENNETH JONES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PAULA HUFFMAN-PHILLIPS, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)

No. 1:12CV70 LMB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. The
motion will be denied without prejudice.
In his motion, plaintiff requests that the Court enjoin the defendants from
denying him basic hygiene items, legal supplies, and legal research materials.
Plaintiff also seeks an order from the Court prohibiting defendants from requiring him
to show them a court deadline or qualified legal claim before he can receive certified
inmate account statements or additional time in the law library. These allegations
comport with the allegations in the complaint. However, in the complaint, plaintiff
alleges that he was hampered with prosecuting a pending lawsuit in the Western
District of Missouri. In his motion for prospective relief, plaintiff does not allege that
he continues to be prevented from fully pursuing any civil litigation.

Defendants reply that the motion should be denied. Defendants argue that
plaintiff has failed to show that he is suffering an actual legal injury as a result of
being allegedly denied legal materials or library time. Defendants further maintain
that they have no authority to alter the Department of Corrections policies as plaintiff
is requesting. Defendants assert that plaintiff not been denied basic hygiene items;
defendants claim that plaintiff refuses to pick up care packages that are available to
him once a week. In support of this claim, defendants have included the affidavit of
Susan Price, a Case Manager, who attests to these facts.
To determine whether preliminary injunctive relief is warranted, the Court must
balance the threat of irreparable harm to movant, the potential harm to the nonmoving
party should an injunction issue, the likelihood of success on the merits, and the
public interest. Dataphase Sys. v. CL Sys., 640 F.2d 109, 113-14 (8th Cir. 1981) (en
banc). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and the burden of
establishing the propriety of an injunction is on the movant.” Watkins, Inc. v. Lewis,
346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). “The party seeking injunctive
relief bears the burden of proving all the Dataphase factors.” Id.
The Court does not believe that plaintiff has demonstrated that he is subject to
irreparable harm. Plaintiff has timely responded to the issues in this case. And
plaintiff has not shown that the requirement that he be required to demonstrate a
-2-

qualified legal claim is an impediment to pursuing his litigation. Plaintiff ought to
be able to demonstrate this to prison officials by showing them the docket sheet for
this case or for his other pending cases. Regarding plaintiff’s access to basic hygiene
items, plaintiff has not provided the Court with facts demonstrating that the
attestations of Susan Price are untrue. Moreover, the Court does not lightly intrude
on the state’s administration of its prisons or setting prison policies. Granting
plaintiff’s requested relief, without more, would harm defendants’ ability to continue
carrying out their day-to-day responsibilities in running the prison. As a result, the
Court finds that injunctive relief is not warranted at this time.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief
[Doc. 6] is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 1st day of October, 2012.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-