Williams v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitations and Corrections et al

Filing 64

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 57 Plaintiff's MOTION for Preventative Injunctive and Temporary Restraining Order (Preliminary Injunction) be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 6/16/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 6-2-17. (mcm)(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 AT DAYTON
Melody L. Williams,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Corrections, et al.,
Defendants.

: Case No. 3:15-cv-00388
:
: District Judge Thomas M. Rose
: Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS1
This case is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for Preventative
Injunctive and Temporary Restraining Order (Preliminary Injunction) (Doc. #57) and
Defendants’ Status Report and attached Exhibits (Doc. #59). Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief “to prevent further injury and the potential of loss of life[,] due to the Defendant
ODRC’s failure to treat, and provide emergency medical care.” (Doc. #57, p. 3). She
also states that she is “is in immediate harm and does fear death.” Id. at 2. This appears
to stem, in part, from an alleged denial of medical care in August 2016 for her lifethreatening perforated ulcer and from an alleged denial of medical care for her serious
medical emergency on April 29, 2017. Id. at 7.

1

Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendations.

On May 24, 2017, the Court held a telephone conference with Plaintiff and
Defendants’ counsel. During the conference Plaintiff alleged that her prison medical
records do not accurately describe her medical diagnoses and, as a result, she has been
denied treatment for several serious health problems in violation of the Constitution.
Plaintiff explained, for example, that while she was receiving medical care at the Ohio
State University Hospital in January 2017, they told her she has multiple stomach ulcers
one of which was healing on its own. She further explained that her current prison
medical records do not state that she has been diagnosed with multiple stomach ulcers.
This, she claims, allows medical personnel to deny mandatory medical treatment she is
due under the Constitution. The same goes, according to Plaintiff, for her other medical
problems such as herniated discs in her back and H-Pylori.
The extraordinary remedy provided by a preliminary injunction may be available
when the following four factors are balanced against each other:
(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., 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002)
(citation omitted). The same balance of factors applies to requests for temporary
injunctions. See Stein v. Thomas, 672 F. App’x 565, 569 (6th Cir. 2016). “Although no
one factor is controlling, a finding that there is simply no likelihood of success on the
merits is usually fatal.” Gonzales v. National Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 225 F.3d 620, 625
(6th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
2

Balancing these factors against each other in this case establishes that Plaintiff is
not entitled to the injunctive relief she seeks. First, she cannot show a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits of the allegations she presently raises because she has
not exhausted her administrative remedies regarding her presently raised new
constitutional claims, i.e., ones not asserted in her original complaint. Porter v. Nussle,
534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002) (“exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about
prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and
whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.”).
Second, neither Plaintiff’s Motion nor the information she provided to the Court
during the telephone conference show that her life is in immediate peril or that she will
suffer irreparable harm if an injunction does not issue. At best, she speculates about
potential harm she might incur, if certain future events occur. Such speculation falls
short of showing irreparable harm. See United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 262 (5th
Cir.2001) (“to establish irreparable harm, ‘[s]peculative injury is not sufficient; there
must be more than an unfounded fear on the part of the applicant.’”). Lastly, Plaintiff’s
allegations do not implicate either of the remaining preliminary-injunctions factors. For
these reasons, the balance of the applicable factors fails to support issuance of the
preliminary injunction Plaintiff seeks. Cf. Matthews v. Core Civic, No. 1:16cv0108,
2017 WL 1021287, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. 2017) (Holmes, M.J.) (Report and
Recommendation) (“Absent extraordinary and urgently compelling reasons, the Court
will not intervene in matters such as the day-to-day operations of a correctional
facility….”).
3

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion lacks merit.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preventative Injunctive and Temporary Restraining Order
(Preliminary Injunction) (Doc. #57) be DENIED.

June 2, 2017

s/Sharon L. Ovington
Sharon L. Ovington
United States Magistrate Judge

4

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections
to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served
with this Report and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is
extended to SEVENTEEN days because this Report is being served by one of the methods
of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Such objections shall specify
the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in
support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part
upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly
arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree
upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise
directs. A party may respond to another party=s objections within FOURTEEN days after
being served with a copy thereof.
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, 949-50
(6th Cir. 1981).

5