Hodge v. Corrections Corporation of America et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The undersigned Magistrate Judge respectfully RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction (Docket Entry Nos. 46 and 47) be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 1/25/2017. (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
MAXWELL M. HODGE, III
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, et al.
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. For the following reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge respectfully
RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction (Docket Entry Nos. 46 and 47)
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
Plaintiff filed an additional motion for injunctive relief on January 12, 2017 (Docket No. 56), for
which a report and recommendation will be made as expeditiously as the Magistrate Judge’s workload
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. The five
Defendants have answered the complaint and a scheduling order has been entered.
Presently pending are two motions filed by Plaintiff in which he requests preliminary
injunctive relief related to his confinement at the TTCC. See Docket Entry Nos. 46 and 47. He
complains that he has gone several days at a time without a shower, that he has not been given cleaning
supplies when placed in “lock down,” and that a legal letter to him was opened outside of his presence
on December 2, 2016. He requests the Court enter orders on his behalf correcting these issues and/or
investigating the matters. Defendants have filed responses in opposition to both motions. See Docket
Entry Nos. 51 and 52. Defendants admit that, for safety measures, inmates are provided showers and
cleaning supplies only every third day during periods when a lock down is in place, but they deny that
Plaintiff has raised any issues about access to showers or cleaning supplies that warrant a preliminary
injunction. See Docket Entry No. 52. They further admit that a single piece of legal mail addressed
to Plaintiff was opened outside of his presence, but contend that the mail was opened by accident and
that the mail was promptly delivered to Plaintiff. See Docket Entry No. 51.
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
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.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned Magistrate Judge respectfully RECOMMENDS that
Plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction (Docket Entry Nos. 46 and 47) be DENIED.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of
Court within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and Recommendation 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.
BARBARA D. HOLMES
United States Magistrate Judge
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?