Glenn-El v. Fluharty et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 12 PRO SE MOTION Release from Administrative Segregation filed by Plaintiff Mario Glenn-El. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Docket No. 12) is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from the denial of plaintiffs motion wouldnot be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/7/21. (CSG)
Case: 1:20-cv-00194-SNLJ Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/07/21 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 93
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESLEY FLUHARTY, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Mario Glenn-El to be released
from administrative segregation. (Docket No. 12). For the reasons discussed below, the motion
will be denied.
On December 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to be released from administrative
segregation. In the motion, he requests such release in order to research and file a federal habeas
corpus action. (Docket No. 12 at 1). Specifically, plaintiff states that he has five months left of his
one-year limitations period in which to timely file his habeas corpus petition. However, plaintiff
asserts that he has no access to the law library or legal material, and that he is seeking help from
an inmate who works as a law library clerk. Plaintiff alleges that he has been placed in segregation
by defendant Fluharty's wife in retaliation for plaintiffs lawsuit. (Docket No. 12 at 2). As such,
plaintiff asks the Court to release him from segregation.
The Court has construed plaintiffs motion as requesting preliminary injunctive relief. In
determining whether to grant such relief, the Court applies "a flexible consideration of (1) the
Case: 1:20-cv-00194-SNLJ Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/07/21 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #: 94
threat of irreparable harm to the moving party; (2) balancing this harm with any injury an
injunction would inflict on other interested parties; (3) the probability that the moving party would
succeed on the merits; and (4) the effect on the public interest." St. Louis Effort/or AIDSv. Huff,
782 F.3d 1016, 1021 (8 th Cir. 2015). See also Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. CL Systems, Inc., 640
F.2d 109, 113 (8 th Cir. 1981).
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." Gojf v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8 th Cir. 1995).
For an injunction to issue, "a right must be violated," and the court must determine whether "a
cognizable danger of future violation exists." Id. at 521. Furthermore, the "danger must be more
than a mere possibility." Id. Regarding the issue of whether a situation is ripe for injunctive relief,
the Eighth Circuit has noted that courts "should not get involved unless either a constitutional
violation has already occurred or the threat of such a violation is both real and immediate." Id.
Plaintiff has the burden of proving that an injunction should be issued. See Mgmt. Registry, Inc. v.
A. W Cos., Inc., 920 F .3d 1181, 1183 (8 th Cir. 2019).
Here, plaintiff has not carried his burden of showing that injunctive relief should be
granted. First, he has not demonstrated a threat of irreparable harm. While he states that being in
administrative segregation has made it difficult to research his federal habeas petition, he has not
demonstrated that he is being kept from filing such petition, or even that he will be in segregation
for another five months, when he asserts that his one-year limitations period will expire.
Second, the balance of harm in issuing an injunction militates against granting injunctive
relief. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Southeast Correctional Center, and is asking to be
released from administrative segregation, where he has been placed due to a conduct violation.
Case: 1:20-cv-00194-SNLJ Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/07/21 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #: 95
However, judicial restraint is called for when dealing with issues of prison administration,
especially issues involving security. Granting plaintiffs request for injunctive relief would require
the Court to overrule the Southeast Correctional Center's security decisions based on extremely
ambiguous factual allegations.
Third, plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on.the merits. He vaguely states that
he has been placed in administrative segregation in retaliation for his filing of the instant action,
but provides no factual support for this contention. Indeed, aside from a brief acknowledgment
that he was segregated due to a conduct violation, there is nothing in the motion to adequately
establish that his confinement to administrative segregation is inappropriate, or that it has resulted
in his being denied access to the courts.
Finally, plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief fails because the substance of the motion is
not related to the claims in his complaint. That is, plaintiffs complaint concerned alleged
discrimination on the basis of his religion. The request for injunctive relief, however, states that
plaintiff has been wrongfully placed into administrative segregation, and that he is worried about
not meeting the deadline for filing his federal habeas petition. He also. asserts that an individual
who was not named as a defendant in the original complaint has retaliated against him. Because
the claims in the motion are not related to the claims in the complaint, the Court cannot grant the
motion. See Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8 th Cir. 1994) (explaining that "a party
moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury
claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint"); and Hale v. Wood, 89
F.3d 840, 1996 WL 341206, at *1 (8 th Cir. 1996) (unpublished opinion) (rejecting plaintiffs
request for injunctive relief because he "failed to establish a connection between these injuries and
Case: 1:20-cv-00194-SNLJ Doc. #: 13 Filed: 01/07/21 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #: 96
the conduct he challenged in his complaint"). For all these reasons, plaintiffs motion for
preliminary injunctive relief must be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunctive relief
(Docket No. 12) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from the denial of plaintiffs motion would
not be taken in good faith.
Dated this 7,¼day o f ~ ~ "''I
STEifHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR 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?