Bennett v. Brown et al

Filing 13

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The first motion is a request that the Warden be directed to remove cameras from the Plaintiff's cell and return him to a normal housing unit (Docket Entry 10). The second motion is for an immediate injuncti on to order the Tennessee Department of Corrections to transfer the Plaintiff to another prison (Docket Entry 11). For the reasons stated, the Magistrate Judge recommends that both of these motions be denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 11/4/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
COREY ALAN BENNETT #509793,

)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
WARDEN BRUCE WESTBROOKS, et al., )
)
Defendants
)
TO:

No. 3:15-0937
Senior Judge Haynes/Brown
Jury Demand

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM J. HAYNES, JR.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Presently pending are two motions for injunctive relief

(Docket Entries 10 and 11) by the Plaintiff filed on October 29,
2015.
The first motion is a request that the Warden be directed
to remove cameras from the Plaintiff’s cell and return him to a
normal housing unit (Docket Entry 10).
The second motion is for an immediate injunction to order
the Tennessee Department of Corrections to transfer the Plaintiff
to another prison (Docket Entry 11).
For

the

reasons

stated

below,

the

Magistrate

Judge

recommends that both of these motions be denied.
BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff filed yet another complaint in a long list
of complaints he has filed against various state employees about
his treatment in the prison system. The Court allowed this case to
proceed forward, despite the fact the Plaintiff has numerous
strikes for filing frivolous lawsuits, as set forth in Docket Entry

5. As the District Judge noted, the Plaintiff has filed a number of
complaints, many of which strain credibility. The District Judge
allowed this case to proceed with a number of limitations. In
particular, service was directed only as to Warden Westbrooks and
the undersigned was directed to set a hearing and have the Warden
or his representative bring with them for the Court’s inspection
all medical and transport records relating to Corey Bennett for the
preceding

six

months.

The

undersigned

will

then

make

a

determination what service of process should be allowed for any of
the remaining Defendants, or whether a recommendation would be
entered that some or all Defendants be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b).
The

Magistrate

Judge

was

also

directed

to

consider

whether the matter should be referred to the United States Attorney
to investigate possible criminal action against the Plaintiff under
28 U.S.C. § 1623, which provides for the prosecution of any person
who knowingly makes false material declarations while under oath in
any proceeding before a federal court.
The

Magistrate

Judge,

along

with

this

report

and

recommendation, is contemporaneously entering an order setting this
matter for a case management conference and for the production of
the Plaintiff’s medical and transport records.
The Plaintiff has filed similar motions for injunctive
relief in a related case (Bennett v. Griffin, et al., 3:15-617). In
that case the Defendants have filed an affidavit from Warden

2

Westbrooks (Docket Entry 56-1) responding to the motions dealing
with the Plaintiff’s transfer and the reasons why a camera is
placed in his cell. The Magistrate Judge carefully considered the
Warden’s response in that case and finds that it is applicable to
this case.
As noted in the initial review (Docket Entry 5) the
Plaintiff alleges he had 29 stitches, a broken collar bone, a
broken jaw, two black eyes, and a broken left arm, and that he
spent four days in intensive care at Vanderbilt University, prior
to his return to Riverbend Maximum Security Institution (RMSI). He
further alleged that another inmate at RMSI is allowed to enter the
medical units and rape the Plaintiff on a daily basis. He also
alleges that members of the prison staff continued to beat him.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
The Warden’s decision that a camera be placed in the
Plaintiff’s cell in order to document who goes into the Plaintiff’s
cell and what occurs as protection for both the Plaintiff and the
prison’s

staff

is

imminently

reasonable.

The

Plaintiff

has

repeatedly claimed that prison officials and even the Governor have
personally assaulted him. Bennett v. Scholfield, 3:15-CV-401. The
Warden would be derelict, given the Plaintiff’s history of filing
suits of this nature, not to install a camera to record the
Plaintiff’s

activities.

Were

these

complaints

genuine,

the

Magistrate Judge would think that the Plaintiff would insist on

3

having a camera on him at all times so that he could prove his
allegations.
The Plaintiff’s request to be transferred to another
institution also makes little practical sense. The Plaintiff has a
long history of filing suits about conditions in many prisons and
there

is

no

reason

to

think

that

his

transfer

to

another

institution would not simply produce another set of claims and
another set of defendants, where he will claim that he is in
imminent danger, to avoid the restrictions of three strikes.
The requirements for granting the extraordinary relief of
a preliminary or permanent injunction are well-known. City of
Pontiac Retired Employees Ass’n. v. Schimmel, 751 F.3d 427, 430 (6th
Cir. 2014).
(1)

The Plaintiff must establish a strong likelihood of
the probability of success on the merits. Given the
nature

of

repeated

the

Plaintiff’s

failure

to

obtain

allegations
success

in

and

his

filing

similar complaints, his likelihood of success is
quite low.
(2)

The

risk

of

irreparable

harm.

Despite

the

Plaintiff’s repeated claims that his life is in
danger and that he has endured repeated attacks
that have left him unconscious with broken bones
and

stitches,

he

has

not

produced

supporting

evidence in any of his cases. The fact that he is

4

now under constant surveillance also reduces any
risk

of

harm.

The

Magistrate

Judge

notes

that

although he is housed in a medical unit, he now
wants to be moved to another unit so he can obtain
medical

treatment.

This

is

hardly

a

logical

request.
(3)

Granting the injunction would not cause harm to
others. Courts are not well suited to managing
prisons. Moving the Plaintiff could easily cause
more harm than good to other state employees and
would

be

complaints.

unlikely
A

move

to

resolve
would

the

only

Plaintiff’s

transfer

his

complaints to other defendants.
(4)

Finally, would the public interest would be served.
The public interest would not be served by the
Court attempting to micro-manage the prison system,
particularly when the Plaintiff appears to make it
one of his life’s ambitions to repeatedly file
lawsuits, many of which have been either dismissed
up front as frivolous or voluntarily dismissed by
the Plaintiff once the Defendants have answered.
Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271, 274 (6th Cir. 1995).

In this case the Magistrate Judge will issue an order to
have the Plaintiff’s medical and transport records produced so that
his complaints can be compared against his medical and transport

5

records. From a view of his other cases it appears that at times
the

Plaintiff

has

filed

litigation

at

the

same

time

he

has

contended that he has been unconscious at a hospital. The fact that
the Plaintiff is under constant camera surveillance should insure
that the Plaintiff is not attacked by anyone.
RECOMMENDATION
For

the

reasons

stated

above,

the

Magistrate

Judge

recommends that both these motions be denied.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
any

party

has

14

days

from

receipt

of

this

Report

and

Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this
Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said
objections shall have 14 days from receipt of any objections filed
in this Report in which to file any responses to said objections.
Failure to file specific objections within 14 days of receipt of
this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further
appeal of this Recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 106 S.
Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985), Reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).
ENTER this 4th day of November, 2015.
/s/
Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

6