Bronson v. Straughn

Filing 31

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 23 Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order or for preliminary injunctive relief 23 be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 5/10/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 4/26/2021. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DANIEL BRONSON,

Case No. 1:20-cv-334

Plaintiff,

Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.
DEPUTY MONTEZ STRAUGHN,
Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Background
Plaintiff, currently a prisoner at the London Correctional Institution, initiated this pro
se civil rights suit on April 28, 2020, alleging that Hamilton County Justice Center Deputy
Montez Straughn struck Plaintiff’s face multiple times with his closed fist on February 23,
2020, during a time when Plaintiff was incarcerated at the jail.1 (Doc. 3). For relief on his
excessive force claim, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages of $6,000. (Id.) Upon initial
screening, the undersigned directed service on Defendant Straughn. (Doc. 4).
On December 22, 2020, Defendant filed an answer “in all capacities,” admitting
that he worked at the HCJC “at one point” but otherwise denying Plaintiff’s claim against
him. (See Doc. 16 at ¶¶1-2). Recently, the Court appointed counsel for Plaintiff for the
limited purpose of assisting him in a court-facilitated mediation before Magistrate Judge
Karen L. Litkovitz, which mediation is scheduled to occur on June 21, 2021. (See Docs.

1

On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed the first of several Notices updating the Court with his current address; thus,
it is clear from the record that Plaintiff has not been incarcerated at the jail since at least July 6, 2020. (See
Docs. 7, 12, 28).

1 

27, 30; see also Doc. 27 at 1, stating that counsel “is not obligated to conduct any
discovery, to prepare or respond to any motions or to participate in the trial of this case.”).
In the meantime, discovery remains ongoing and is scheduled to conclude on July 20,
2021. (Doc. 18).
On February 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and
for a preliminary injunction relief, seeking injunctive relief against the “defendant, their
successors in office, agents and employees[,] and all other persons acting in concert and
participation with them” at his “current institution.” (Doc. 23 at 2-3).

Plaintiff was

incarcerated at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio at the time
he filed his motion for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief. Although Plaintiff
complains about multiple conditions of confinement, none of those conditions pertain to
the subject matter of this lawsuit. And, despite Plaintiff’s repeated references to an
unspecified “defendant” along with “their successors” or other personnel, Defendant
Straughn is not employed at the Youngstown facility, from which Plaintiff has since been
transferred.
II. Analysis
In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the Court must examine
four factors: (1) whether the movant has shown a strong likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued;
(3) whether the issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and
(4) whether the public interest would be served by issuing the injunction. Overstreet v.
Lexington–Fayette Urban Cty. Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Leary v.
Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000) (additional citation omitted). These factors
2 

are not prerequisites, but are factors that are to be balanced against each
other. Id. (citations omitted). The allegations in Plaintiff’s motion are insufficient to show
any of these requirements for temporary injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s only claim in this
lawsuit is against a former deputy who allegedly used excessive force against Plaintiff
during a single incident that occurred at the Hamilton County Justice Center. Plaintiff
was transferred from the county jail not later than July 2020 and has not returned.
Plaintiff’s motion does not relate to the sole claim in this case, but to entirely
different grievances against unidentified non-parties at a state institution from which
Plaintiff has since been transferred. Ordinarily, the Court will not enjoin non-parties, and
will not issue injunctive relief that is entirely unrelated to the Plaintiff’s underlying claim.
Sidiq v. Champion, 2006 WL 1275403 at *2 (W.D. Mich., May 8, 2006) (citing De Beers
Consol. Mines Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). This case is no exception.
Moreover, when an injunction is sought by an inmate against state prison officials, the
Sixth Circuit has noted that findings of fact in support of any granted relief are “especially
critical” since such an order would necessarily intrude “significantly into the prerogatives
of state correctional officials.” See Glover v. Johnson, 855 F.2d 277, 284 (6th Cir.
1988); Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432, 438, n. 3 (6th Cir. 1984) (“[W]here state penal
institutions are involved, federal courts have a further reason for deference to the
appropriate prison authorities”) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons stated, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s motion for a
temporary restraining order or for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 23) be DENIED.

3 

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

4 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DANIEL BRONSON,

Case No. 1:20-cv-334

Plaintiff,

Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.
DEPUTY MONTEZ STRAUGHN,
Defendant.

NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
of the filing date of this R&R. 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
(14) 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).

5