Manuel v. Phillips et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 42 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Michael T. Manuel-Bey, 59 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Michael T. Ma nuel-Bey, 40 MOTION to Compel filed by Plaintiff Michael T. Manuel-Bey, 50 MOTION to Compel filed by Plaintiff Michael T. Manuel-Bey. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions to compel [40, 50] are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED tha t Plaintiff's motion for preliminary and permanent injunction 42 is DENIED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for extension of time 59 is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is granted an additional thirty (30) days, up to and includ ing November 4, 2015, to file his response to Defendants' motions for summary judgment. To the extent the Attorney General has not provided Plaintiff with the entire food master menu, the Attorney General shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of the full document no later than October 7, 2015. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 9/28/15. (CSG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MICHAEL T. MANUEL-BEY, a/k/a
MICHAEL T. MANUEL,
PAULA PHILLIPS, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The following matters are pending before the Court: Plaintiff’s motions to compel (Doc.
Nos. 40, 50), motion for preliminary and permanent injunction (Doc. No. 42), and motion for
extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 59)
Motions to compel
The Federal Rules relating to discovery permit each party to serve the opposing party
with document requests and interrogatories which relate to “any matter that may be inquired into
under Rule 26(b).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(2) and 34(a). Where a party fails to cooperate in
discovery, the propounding party may move the Court “for an order compelling an answer,
designation, production, or inspection.” Id. R. 37(a)(3)(B).
Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed May 4, 2015, sought an order from this Court
compelling Defendants Paula Phillips and Thomas Shanefelter to produce for inspection a full
copy of his medical history; “SOP 21-1.2 and any other SOP retaining [sic] to Ad-Seg or DisSeg”; “a copy of the Administrative Segregation Committee Request”; “a full copy of the food
menu Weeks 1-6 of the winter jail menu and a full copy of Weeks 1-6 of the summer menu.” In
his motion to compel filed July 7, 2015, Plaintiff states Defendants refused to produce SOP-211.2 Administrative Segregation and a full cycle of the food menu, which contains a six-week
printout for summer and a six-week printout for winter, for a total of 12 pages. Defendants filed
a Response to Plaintiffs’ motions stating they would respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests
within thirty days of service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(A).
(Doc. No. 51) After consideration, the motions will be denied.
Motion for preliminary and permanent injunction1
Plaintiff requests the Court order he be provided with a lactose free diet. This is
Plaintiff’s second motion for injunctive relief. (See Doc. No. 33) Again, preliminary relief is
intended to “preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an
opportunity to rule on the lawsuit's merits.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th
Cir.1994); Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. CL Systems, Inc., 640 F. 2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (listing
factors to consider). The burden of proof lies with the movant. Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518 (8th
Cir.1995). “In the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great
caution because judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and
intractable problems of prison administration.” Id. at 520.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated he is entitled to injunctive relief under the Dataphase
factors. There is no evidence supporting his conclusory allegations that he will suffer any
irreparable harm or that he will likely succeed on the merits of his case. See Gladden v. Roach,
Defendants filed their oppositions to Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary and permanent injunction on
May 21, 2015 (Doc. No. 43) and May 26, 2015. (Doc. No. 46) Plaintiff filed a reply on June 4, 2015.
(Doc. No. 48)
864 F.2d 1196, 1198 (5th Cir. 1989) (unsupported speculation is not sufficient bases for
injunctive relief). Indeed, Plaintiff’s medical records show he has been seen by medical
providers on many occasions, but rarely for anything associated with his alleged lactose
intolerance. (See Doc. No. 43-1 at 4-11) Since September 2014, he has only reported one
stomach related issue, i.e., heartburn and gas, for which he received treatment. (Id. at 9-10)
Accordingly, the motion will be denied.
Motion for extension of time
In his motion, Plaintiff requests additional time to respond to Defendants’ pending
motions for summary judgment filed September 4, 2015 because Defendants Phillips and
Shanefelter have refused to produce the entire food master menu, Spring/Summer-Fall/Winter, a
total of 12 pages. To the extent the Attorney General has not produced the entire menu, the Court
will order the Attorney General to provide Plaintiff with the full document. The Court will also
grant Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days to file his response to Defendants’ motions for
summary judgment. In all other respects, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to compel [40, 50] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary and permanent
injunction  is DENIED.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time  is
GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is granted an additional thirty (30) days, up to and including
November 4, 2015, to file his response to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. To the
extent the Attorney General has not provided Plaintiff with the entire food master menu, the
Attorney General shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of the full document no later than October
Dated this 28th day of September, 2015.
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?