Hodge v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 30

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 13, and 15) be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 10/31/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

MAXWELL M. HODGE, III
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, et al.

)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:16-2470

TO: Honorable Aleta A. Trauger, District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
By Order entered September 15, 2016 (Docket Entry No. 3), the Court referred this pro se
and in forma pauperis prisoner civil rights action to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the
Local Rules of Court.
Maxwell M. Hodge, III (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate confined at the Trousdale Turner
Correctional Center (“TTCC”) in Hartsville, Tennessee. He sues Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that his constitutional rights are being violated at the TTCC. Specifically, he alleges that he
should not be housed at the TTCC, that TTCC staff are retaliating against him because of prison
grievances that he files, that medical staff have either not given him his prescribed medications or
given the medications to him in an untimely matter, that he has been wrongly housed in “lock down,”
and that he has endured poor living conditions. See Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1) at 6-8. Process
was recently served upon the five named Defendants in the action, and they have been granted an
extension of time to respond to the Complaint.

Presently pending are three motions filed by Plaintiff in which he requests various forms of
preliminary injunctive relief related to his confinement at the TTCC. See Docket Entry Nos. 9, 13, and
15. He requests intervention by the Court on his behalf and orders directing: 1) that he be housed at
another facility; 2) that his medications be provided to him as prescribed and/or reordered; 3) that he
be protected from retaliation; 4) that inmate cells remain unlocked during recreation time so inmates
have access to bathrooms; and 5) that inmate legal mail be given to inmates within 24 hours after it
is received.
Plaintiff’s motions should be denied. Preliminary injunctions are governed by Rule 65(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 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). Preliminary injunctions are considered 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). However, Plaintiff has not supported his motions with any type of affirmative
evidence and has not met this burden.
Further, Plaintiff has not shown that any factors weigh in favor of his requests for a
preliminary injunction. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 441, 94 S.Ct. 1113,
39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974). McNeilly v. Land, 684 F.3d 611, 615 (6th Cir. 2012); Leary v. Daeschner, 228
F.3d. 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000); Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. CAFCOMP Systems, 119 F.3d 393, 401
(6th Cir. 1997) Parker v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric. 879 F.2d. 1362, 1367 (6th Cir. 1989); Mason Cnty Med.
Assocs. v. Knebel, 563 F.2d 256, 261 (6th Cir. 1977). At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff's

2

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 and has not shown
that a public interest would be advanced by the requested relief. See National Hockey League Players
Ass'n v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey Club, 372 F.3d 712, 720 n.4 (6th Cir. 2003). Absent extraordinary
and urgently compelling reasons, the Court will not intervene in matters such as the day-to-day
operations in a correctional facility. Such reasons have not been shown by Plaintiff.

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary
injunction (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 13, and 15) be DENIED.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of
Court within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice and must state with particularity the specific
portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. Failure to file written
objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal the District Court's
Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466,
88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Respectfully submitted,

BARBARA D. HOLMES
United States Magistrate Judge

3