Chasteen v. Johnson et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 2 Motion for TRO; adopting 10 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 7/10/2012. (cw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ADAM CHASTEEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:12-cv-229
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King

ROD JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
On

March

26,

2012,

the

United

States

Magistrate

Judge

recommended that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction, Doc. No. 2, be denied.
Recommendation, Doc. No. 10.

Order and Report and

This matter is now before the Court on

plaintiff’s objections to that recommendation. Objection, Doc. No. 18.
Having considered the matter de novo, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b);

Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b), the Court AFFIRMS that recommendation.1
Plaintiff’s motion asks that defendants be required to produce
evidence, that plaintiff be protected from further retaliation during the
pendency

of

the

proceedings

and

that

plaintiff

release[d] to Transitional Control . . . .”

be

“immediate[ly]

Doc. No. 2, p. 2.

The

Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied, reasoning that
plaintiff had not shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits:
Although certain of plaintiff’s claims will
proceed in this action, the Court cannot conclude
that plaintiff has satisfied the first prong of the

1

The Magistrate Judge also denied plaintiff’s request for the
appointment of counsel to assist him in his pursuit of interim injunctive
relief. Because the Court agrees with the recommended disposition of the
motion for interim injunctive relief, the Court also agrees with the denial of
plaintiff’s motion for a limited appointment of counsel.

standard for interim injunctive relief. Although
plaintiff insists that he was subjected to
excessive force, the Complaint acknowledges that
there was testimony before the Rules Infractions
Board that contradicted plaintiff’s version [of
the] events.2 Although the course of proceedings
in this action may ultimately prove plaintiff’s
version correct, it cannot be said that, at this
juncture, plaintiff has established a strong
likelihood of success on the merits of this claim.
Plaintiff also alleges that he has been
denied medical care.
However, some of the
dispositions of grievances attached to plaintiff’s
Complaint refer to medical treatment provided to
plaintiff.
Again, although plaintiff may yet
prevail on these claims, the Court concludes that
plaintiff has not at this point made the strong
case required for the extraordinary remedy of
interim injunctive relief.
Although plaintiff’s claims of retaliation
will proceed, the Court likewise concludes that the
allegations supporting those claims do not justify
the extraordinary remedy of interim injunctive
relief.
The Complaint offers little by way of
specific allegations of retaliation.
Moreover,
although plaintiff insists that he was falsely
charged with and convicted of a prison rules
infraction, the fact remains that he stands
convicted of violating prison rules.
Order and Report and Recommendation, pp. 2-3.
Plaintiff objects, first, to the fact that the Magistrate Judge
considered only one factor of the standard governing the issuance of
interim injunctive relief.

However, the United States Court of Appeals

for the Sixth Circuit has expressly held that where, as here, the movant
has not established a strong likelihood of success on the merits, the
remaining factors of the analysis need not be expressly considered.
Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1249 (6th Cir. 1997).
Although plaintiff disagrees with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge,
and argues the merits of his claims, this Court agrees that, at this

2

Plaintiff characterizes such testimony as false.

2

juncture, plaintiff has not established a strong likelihood of success
on the merits.

In any event, even considering the remaining factors

governing the analysis, Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir.
2000), the Court concludes that the extraordinary remedy of interim
injunctive relief is not appropriate on this record.

In particular, the

Court concludes that the public interest would not be served by the
issuance of injunctive relief that intrudes to an unwarranted extent into
the operation of a prison. Moreover, a request for an inmate’s immediate
release, such as that made by plaintiff, is ordinarily inappropriate in
an action challenging conditions of confinement under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973)(a prisoner who seeks
immediate release must pursue a writ of habeas corpus).
Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that plaintiff’s
Objection, Doc. No. 18, is without merit. The Report and Recommendation,
Doc. No. 10, is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff’s motion for interim

injunctive relief, Doc. No. 2, is DENIED. With the denial of plaintiff’s
motion for interim injunctive relief, it follows that plaintiff’s motion
for the appointment of counsel to assist him in connection with that
motion is likewise without merit.

The Magistrate Judge’s order to that

effect was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b).

s/Algenon L. Marbley
Algenon L. Marbley
United States District Judge
Dated:

July 10, 2012

3