White v. Erdos et al

Filing 77

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 65 Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction. IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 65 be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 1/21/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 1/7/2022. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 1:19-cv-01007-SJD-SKB Doc #: 77 Filed: 01/07/22 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 517

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JERMEAL WHITE,

Case No. 1:19-cv-1007

Plaintiff,

Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.

vs
WARDEN RON ERDOS, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This civil rights action is now before the Court on Plaintiff's pro se motion for
injunctive relief (Docs. 65) and Defendant’s memorandum contra. (Doc. 69). Notably,
Plaintiff asserts that he is being harassed and threatened by Defendants and asks the
Court to transfer him to another prison. Plaintiff’s request is not well-taken.
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy designed to preserve the
relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.” Tenn. Scrap
Recyclers Ass'n v. Bredesen, 556 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir.2009) (emphasis added). An
injunction decree should not be granted routinely. Weinberger v. Romero–Barcelo, 456
U.S. 305, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). “The decision to grant or deny a
preliminary injunction is within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court.” Mt. Clemens
v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 917 F.2d 908, 914 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting Tyson Foods, Inc.
v. McReynolds, 865 F.2d 99, 101 (6th Cir.1989)).
In exercising its discretion with respect to a motion for a preliminary injunction, a
district court must give consideration to four factors: (1) whether the movant has a strong

Case: 1:19-cv-01007-SJD-SKB Doc #: 77 Filed: 01/07/22 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 518

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury
without the injunction; (3) whether issuance of the injunction would cause substantial
harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of the
injunction. Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum, Inc. v. Gentile Prods., 134 F.3d 749, 753
(6th Cir.1998). In the Sixth Circuit, these four factors are to be balanced and are not
prerequisites that must be met. Thus, a district court is not required to make specific
findings concerning each of the four factors used in determining a motion for preliminary
injunction if fewer factors are dispositive of the issue. Donaldson v. United States, 86 F.
App'x 902, 903 (6th Cir.2004).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish the necessary elements for injunctive relief.
The record fails to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff has made no
attempt to support his claims with any factual evidence. Likewise, he has failed to
establish that he will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. Again, he fails to
support his conclusory allegations of irreparable harm with factual evidence.
Notably, a movant's burden is even more difficult to satisfy where, as here, a prison
inmate seeks an injunction to obtain affirmative relief beyond maintenance of the status
quo. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2) (“In any civil action with respect to prison conditions ...
[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary
to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive
means necessary to correct that harm.”); Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101
S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981) (“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to
preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.”). Thus,
the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent irreparable injury and to preserve the

2 

Case: 1:19-cv-01007-SJD-SKB Doc #: 77 Filed: 01/07/22 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 519

Court's ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits (see United Food &
Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099 v. Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority,
163 F.3d 341, 348 (6th Cir.1998). Plaintiff has failed to allege any actual or imminent
injury. To demonstrate irreparable harm, “a plaintiff must show ‘actual and imminent’
harm rather than harm that is speculative or unsubstantiated.” Abney v. Amgen, Inc., 443
F.3d 540, 552 (6th Cir.2006).
In light of the foregoing and in consideration of the relevant factors, the
undersigned concludes that Plaintiff's motion lacks merit and is not well-taken. It is
therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff motion (Doc. 65) be DENIED.

s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

3 

Case: 1:19-cv-01007-SJD-SKB Doc #: 77 Filed: 01/07/22 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 520

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JERMEAL WHITE,

Case No. 1:19-cv-1007

Plaintiff,

Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.

vs
WARDEN RON ERDOS, et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after
being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the
portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in
support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within
FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make
objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

4