THOMAS v. WARREN
Filing
6
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 1/31/2014. (jjc)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
WILLIAM THOMAS,
Civil Action No. 13-4150 (FLW)
Plaintiff,
v.
OPINION
CHARLES E. WARREN, JR.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
WILLIAM THOMAS, 267620C
New Jersey State Prison
P.O. Box 861
Trenton, NJ 08625
Plaintiff Pro Se
WOLFSON, District Judge:
On July 8, 2013, this Court received from Plaintiff, William Thomas, an inmate incarcerated at
New Jersey State Prison, a complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. By Order and
Opinion entered July 29, 2013, this Court granted Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application, dismissed
certain claims raised in the Complaint with prejudice, and dismissed Plaintiff’s challenges asserting
that he was kept completely naked for at least 23 days, and that he was denied food and nutrients for the
same period, without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint within 30 days. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.)
On July 29, 2013, the same day the Clerk entered this Court’s Opinion and Order dismissing
the Complaint, Plaintiff mailed a letter seeking a temporary restraining order and one-page affidavit to
the Clerk for filing. (Envelope, ECF No. 5 at 3.) Since this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint,
he has not sought to file an amended complaint, and his affidavit does not satisfy the standard for
granting injunctive relief, this Court will deny the motion for a temporary restraining order.
I. BACKGROUND
As stated above, by Opinion and Order entered July 29, 2013, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s
Complaint, but granted him 30 days to file an amended complaint asserting a cognizable claim under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 with respect to his allegations that, from May 6, 2013, through May 29, 2013, he was
kept in a cell and denied any form of nutrition and clothing. The same day this Opinion and Order
were entered, Plaintiff’s letter and affidavit seeking a temporary restraining order were mailed to the
Clerk of this Court. (Envelope, ECF No. 5 at 3.) The Clerk received them the next day, on July 30,
2013. In the letter, Plaintiff states that, on August 1, 2013, relying on the attached affidavit, he will
move for an order to issue a temporary restraining order. (Letter, ECF No. 5 at 1.) Plaintiff asserts
the following facts in the affidavit:
Since I filed my litigation I have been har[]assed verbally, threatened, cell trashed,
food tampered with, dead mice put in my trays (as to say I’m a dead rat!) I really feel
there is a substantial need for a temporary restraining order[;] they (officers) tamper
with my mail incoming/outgoing[,] e[tc]. I feel the staff may try to physically do
harm to my person at any given time. Thus this request for (T.R.O.)
(Affidavit, ECF No. 5 at 2.)
II. STANDARD FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINIING ORDER
A party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction “must show: (1)
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3)
that granting preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that
the public interest favors such relief.” Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Secretary of U.S. Dept. of
Health and Human Services., 724 F.3d 377, 382 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). “A plaintiff’s failure to establish any element in its favor renders a preliminary injunction
inappropriate.” NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters, Inc., 176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999).
2
III. DISCUSSION
This Court previously determined that the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but granted Plaintiff leave to amend his claim concerning the alleged
denial of food and clothing for 23 days. Accordingly, when the Court received Plaintiff’s motion,
there was no pending complaint. Even if this Court construed his motion as an attempt to amend his
complaint, the averments in Plaintiff’s affidavit supporting his motion do not cure the defects in the
original Complaint or otherwise state a claim under § 1983. The averments are too vague to comply
with the pleading regime established by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but
it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”) (citation
omitted). Because Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, he is not entitled to
injunctive relief. See Am. Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. v. Sidamon-Eristoff, 669 F.3d 359, 366
(3d Cir. 2012) (A plaintiff seeking an injunction must show a likelihood of success on the merits, and
the failure to do so “must necessarily result in the denial of a preliminary injunction.”)
III. CONCLUSION
This Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction.
s/Freda L. Wolfson
FREDA L. WOLFSON, U.S.D.J.
DATED:
January 31 , 2014
3
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?