McMath v. Bannum Inc et al
ORDER denying 3 Motion for TRO of Petitioner Heys Edward McMath III. (ECF No. 3.) The court instructs Petitioner to file any and all documentation supporting a Motion for Preliminary Injunction by 5 p.m. on Friday, May 19, 2017. The court will conduct a hearing on the matter of Petitioner's Motion for Preliminary Injunction as soon as possible upon the court's receipt of information confirming the service of injunctive relief documentation on Defendants. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 5/12/2017.(gnan, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Heys Edward McMath III,
Bannum Inc. d/b/a Bannum Place and
Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-01219-JMC
ORDER AND OPINION
Petitioner Heys Edward McMath III (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner currently serving
the last portion of his sentence on home confinement, filed this action against Defendants
Bannum Inc. d/b/a Bannum Place (“Bannum”) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
(together “Defendants”) seeking habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.)
This matter is before the court pursuant to Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (the “TRO Motion”). (ECF No. 3.) For the reasons set forth below, the court
DENIES Petitioner’s TRO Motion.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND TO PENDING MOTION
Petitioner alleges that he is currently serving a term of imprisonment of 42 months, which
sentence began on August 1, 2014, and is scheduled to be completed on August 4, 2017. (ECF
No. 1 at 3 ¶¶ 13 & 14.) Petitioner alleges that in March of 2017, the BOP transferred him from
FPC Montgomery in Alabama to the Bannum Place, a halfway house in Greenville, South
Carolina. (Id. ¶ 15.) Petitioner further alleges that on April 21, 2017, he was released to home
confinement. (Id. ¶ 21.) On April 25, 2017, Petitioner alleges that Bannum drug tested him as a
condition of home confinement. (Id. at 4 ¶ 22.) Finally, Petitioner alleges that his urine
erroneously tested positive for opiates (id. ¶ 23), which he has never taken (ECF No. 1-1 at 2 ¶
6), and, as a result, he was informed by Bannum on May 10, 2017, “to pack his things and return
to the halfway house.” (ECF No. 1 at 5 ¶ 38.)
As a result of the foregoing, and based on his belief that he has “a liberty interest in his
home confinement” that “cannot be taken away from him without due process of law” (ECF No.
1 at 6 ¶ 41), Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, a Writ of Mandamus (together
the “Habeas Petition”) and the instant TRO Motion on May 10, 2017. (ECF Nos. 1 & 3.)
LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
Temporary Restraining Orders Generally
Motions for temporary restraining order are governed by the same general standards that
govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp.,
174 F.3d 411, 422 (4th Cir. 1999). The court’s authority to issue preliminary injunctions arises
from Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
However, “[p]reliminary injunctions are not to be granted
automatically.” Wetzel v. Edwards, 635 F.2d 283, 286 (4th Cir. 1980). A party seeking a
preliminary injunction must establish all four of the following elements: (1) he is likely to
succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); The Real Truth About Obama,
Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 575 F.3d 342, 346–47 (4th Cir. 2009). Only after the movant
makes a clear showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim and that he is likely
to be irreparably harmed absent injunctive relief may the court consider whether the balance of
equities tips in his favor. See Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 346–47. Finally, the court must pay
particular regard to the public consequences of employing the extraordinary relief of injunction.
Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 347 (citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 24).
The court may only grant a TRO, which is issued “without written or oral notice to the
adverse party,” under the strict conditions set forth above. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
The Court’s Review
In support of his TRO Motion, Petitioner offers his Habeas Petition (ECF No. 1) and a
declaration from his attorney, George Campbell. (See ECF No. 1-1.) The court observes that
these documents provide factual background/context for the dispute, but they lack the requisite,
substantive arguments required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 to grant Petitioner’s TRO Motion. As a
result, the court is not persuaded that Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of his Habeas
Petition. Petitioner contends that his due process rights will be violated if his home confinement
is revoked under the circumstance presented. (E.g., ECF No. 1 at 6 ¶ 40.) He further specifies
all of the various procedures (i.e., attend a hearing, present evidence, have a polygraph
administered) he is entitled to receive under due process. (See ECF No. 1 at 4 ¶ 30–5 ¶ 36.)
However, Petitioner’s arguments presume that it is a violation of due process if he is not allowed
to remain on home confinement during the pendency of the BOP’s review of his placement
status after the alleged drug test failure. In this regard, Petitioner has failed to cite any authority
that requires the court to embrace this presumption.1 Therefore, upon consideration of the
Habeas Petition, the Campbell Affidavit, and the TRO Motion, the court finds that Petitioner has
failed to demonstrate that the aforementioned injunctive relief factors require the court to grant
the TRO Motion.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record, the court hereby DENIES the Motion for
A secondary concern for the court is that Petitioner is also seeking to proceed under the
Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706. (See ECF No. 1 at 8 ¶¶ 53–56.)
Discretionary decisions made by the BOP regarding prerelease placement of federal prisoners are
generally exempt from the judicial review provisions of the APA. See 18 U.S.C. § 3625.
Temporary Restraining Order of Petitioner Heys Edward McMath III. (ECF No. 3.) The court
instructs Petitioner to file any and all documentation supporting a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction by 5 p.m. on Friday, May 19, 2017. The court will conduct a hearing on the matter of
Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction as soon as possible upon the court’s receipt of
information confirming the service of injunctive relief documentation on Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
May 12, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?