Booth v. Parker et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel 3 is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to term Plaintiff's "order to show cause for an [sic] preliminary injunction" 4 . Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A. Varlan on 2/7/19. (c/m to Frederick Booth 559057 MCCX MORGAN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX Post Office Box 2000 WARTBURG, TN 37887) (ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
FREDERICK BOOTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
TONY PARKER,
MIKE PARRIS,
RUSTY HALL,
STANTON HIEDLE, and
J. GRUBBS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

3:18-CV-229-TAV-HBG

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Frederick Booth (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate currently confined in the Morgan County
Correctional Complex (“MCCX”) in Wartburg, Tennessee. He brought this lawsuit
seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that Defendants are retaliating against him
for an incident that he has not been found guilty [Doc. 2 p. 6]. To date, Plaintiff’s complaint
has not yet been screened pursuant to the Prisoner Reform Litigation Act, see, e.g.,28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915(A). However, presently pending is Plaintiff’s motion
for appointment of counsel [Doc. 3] and “order to show cause for an [sic] preliminary
injunction” [Doc. 4].
First, the appointment of counsel in a civil proceeding is not a constitutional right,
but rather a privilege justified only in exceptional circumstances. Lavado v. Keohane, 992
F. 2d 601, 605‒6 (6th Cir. 1993). A district court has sound discretion to appoint counsel
for an indigent civil litigant. Reneer v. Sewell, 975 F.2d 258, 261 (6th Cir. 1992). In

exercising its discretion as to whether to appoint counsel, the Court considers several
factors, including the nature of the case, whether the issues are legally or factually complex,
and a plaintiff’s ability to present his claims to the court. Lavado, 992 F.2d at 605–6.
After considering the relevant factors, the Court finds that appointment of counsel
is not warranted at this time, as no exceptional circumstances exist. Thus, Plaintiff’s
motion to appoint counsel [Doc. 3] is DENIED.
Next, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to terminate the pending filing entitled “order
to show cause for an [sic] preliminary injunction” as this document is not a motion but
rather a proposed order requiring Defendants to show cause. The Court notes that while
Plaintiff requests injunctive relief in his complaint, he has not met the standard for that at
this time.
Preliminary injunctions are considered preventive, prohibitory, or protective
measures taken pending resolution on the merits, see Clemons v. Board of Educ., 228 F.2d
853, 856 (6th Cir. 1956), and are extraordinary relief. Detroit Newspaper Publishers Ass’n
v. Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, Int’l Typographical Union, 471 F.2d 872, 876 (6th
Cir. 1972). Plaintiff, as the moving party, has the burden of proving that the circumstances
“clearly demand” a preliminary injunction. Overstreet v. Lexington–Fayette Urban Cnty.
Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff has not met this burden. Plaintiff has
not shown that any factors weigh in favor of his request for preliminary injunctive relief.
Overstreet, 305 F.3d at 573 (Providing that, in determining whether to grant a request for
preliminary relief, courts balance the following factors: (1) whether plaintiff “has shown a
2

strong likelihood of success on the merits;” (2) whether plaintiff will suffer irreparable
injury in the absence of an injunction; (3) whether the injunction will cause substantial
harm to others; and (4) whether the injunction would serve the public interest). At this
stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on his claims is no greater than
that of Defendants. Plaintiff has also not shown that he will suffer irreparable harm if the
injunctive relief he requests is not granted or that a public interest would be advanced by
the requested relief. Further, absent extraordinary and urgently compelling reasons, the
Court will not intervene in matters such as the day-to-day operations in a correctional
facility and where an inmate is housed within the facility. Such extraordinary and urgently
compelling reasons have not been shown by Plaintiff.
In sum, the Court finds as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. 3] is DENIED;

2.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to term Plaintiff’s “order to show cause for an [sic]
preliminary injunction” [Doc. 4];

3.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to immediately inform the Court and Defendants, or
their counsel or record, of any address change pursuant to Local Rule 83.13.

ENTER:

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3