Voter v. Barker

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Filing No. 14 ) is granted to the extent that the Complaint is amended to assert claims for injunctive relief and monetary relief against Defendant in her individual capacity. Plaintiff's claims for monetary relief against Defendant in her official capacity remain dismissed. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction (Filing No. 14 ) is denied in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Defendant's Objection (Filing No. 17 ) is granted. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (TEL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
RONALD VOTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
C.W. BARKER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:12CV3002

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint and for
Temporary Injunction. (Filing No. 14.) Defendant filed an Objection to the Motion. (Filing
No. 17.)
In his Motion, Plaintiff clarifies that he seeks monetary damages against Defendant
in her individual capacity. (Filing No. 14 at CM/ECF p. 2.) Defendant did not object to this
portion of the pending Motion. (Filing No. 17.) The court therefore grants Plaintiff’s Motion
to Amend. However, in accordance with NECivR 15.1(b), the court will consider Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend as supplemental to the original Complaint. That is, Plaintiff does not
need to file a separate amended complaint. However, the parties are informed that the
claims for injunctive relief are asserted against Defendant in both her official and individual
capacities. The claims for monetary relief are asserted against Defendant in her individual
capacity only.
Regarding the portion of the pending Motion seeking a temporary injunction in the
form of a court order prohibiting Defendant from opening Plaintiff’s legal mail under any
circumstances, the Motion is denied. The standards set forth by Dataphase Sys., Inc. v.
C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981), apply to Plaintiff’s Motion. In Dataphase, the

court, sitting en banc, clarified the factors district courts should consider when determining
whether to grant a motion for preliminary injunctive relief:
(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance
between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on
other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the
merits; and (4) the public interest.
Id. at 113. “No single factor in itself is dispositive; rather, each factor must be considered
to determine whether the balance of equities weighs toward granting the injunction.”
United Indus. Corp. v. Clorox Co., 140 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 1998). “At base, the
question is whether the balance of equities so favors the movant that justice requires the
court to intervene to preserve the status quo until the merits are determined. . . .”
Dataphase, 640 F.2d at 113.
The court finds that the Dataphase factors do not favor Plaintiff to a degree
sufficient to warrant issuance of preliminary injunctive relief. In balancing all of the factors,
it is apparent that Plaintiff has not alleged, or submitted any evidence showing, that it is
probable he will succeed on the merits of his claims. In addition, this court is mindful of
the security risks involved with monitoring mail in penal institutions and need not interfere
in that process based on this record. In light of this, and in consideration of all of the
factors, the court sees no reason to “intervene to preserve the status quo until the merits
are determined . . . .” Dataphase, 640 F.2d at 113.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Filing No. 14) is granted to the extent
that the Complaint is amended to assert claims for injunctive relief and
monetary relief against Defendant in her individual capacity. Plaintiff’s claims
for monetary relief against Defendant in her official capacity remain
dismissed; and
2

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction (Filing No. 14) is denied in
accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Defendant’s Objection (Filing
No. 17) is granted.

DATED this 19th day of July, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites.
Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites.
The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink.
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
not affect the opinion of the court.
3