McNeill v. Herring et al

Filing 59

ORDER that the 57 Motion (Captioned as Plaintiff's Request for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order and Sanctions) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 4/13/2021. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (rhf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:18-cv-00189-MR
JAMES C. MCNEILL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MICHAEL D. HINSON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Request for a
Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order and Sanctions.” [Doc.
57].
Pro se Plaintiff James C. McNeill (“Plaintiff”) is a North Carolina
prisoner currently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution (“Polk CI”) in
Butner, North Carolina. Plaintiff filed this action on April 12, 2018, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants Herring, Hinson, Simmons, Horne,
Allen, Turgeon, and Kinney, all identified as employees of Lanesboro
Correctional Institution (“Lanesboro CI”) at the relevant times, based on
events alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated at
Lanesboro CI. [Doc. 1].

Plaintiff’s Complaint survived initial review on

February 5, 2019, except as to Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Herring.

[Doc. 11]. The parties did not file dispositive motions in this matter and the
matter has been set for trial on September 13, 2021. [See 3/17/2021 Docket
Entry].
Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for “preliminary injunction,
temporary restraining order and sanctions.”

[Doc. 57].

In this motion,

Plaintiff complains that some of his legal materials were taken on January
26, 2021 by correctional officers at Polk CI because Plaintiff had too much
personal property in his cell. Plaintiff was told the materials would be stored
in the H-CON Unit Personal Property Storage Room. Plaintiff, however,
discovered on March 17, 2021 that his materials were not in the Storage
Room and that his materials are now missing. [Id.]. Plaintiff does not request
any particular relief, but the Court assumes that he is seeking an injunction
requiring the return of his materials. [See id.].
Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy afforded before
trial at the discretion of the district court. In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig.,
333 F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2003). It is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,
24 (2008). In each case, courts “must balance the competing claims of injury
and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of
the requested relief.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531,
2

542 (1987). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must establish (1)
that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of
equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.
Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 575 F.3d 342, 346
(4th Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief fails. The relief Plaintiff
requests does not relate to the instant lawsuit. Plaintiff’s suit arises out of
alleged events occurring at Lanesboro CI. Here, Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief against individuals who are not parties to the instant suit and related to
conduct wholly distinct from that at issue in the instant lawsuit. It is not within
the Court’s purview to order the relief sought by Plaintiff under these
circumstances. Rather, to the extent the missing legal materials consist only
of case filings, research, Plaintiff’s own notes and the like, Plaintiff’s remedy
is with the internal prison grievance system, not with this Court. To the
extent, however, that the missing legal materials includes evidence that
Plaintiff intends to introduce at the trial in this matter, Plaintiff may raise the
issue at the final pretrial conference in this case. The Court will address the
matter then. The Court will, therefore, deny Plaintiff’s request for injunctive
relief and sanctions without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking to address the
3

missing evidence at the final pretrial conference in this matter.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. 57] is
DENIED without prejudice in accordance with the terms of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 13, 2021

4