Hodge v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 81

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Having conducted a de novo review of the plaintiff's Motion, and in the absence of any objection from the plaintiff, the Court finds that the plaintiff has shown no compelling reason for this relief. The Report and Recomm endation is ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court. For the reasons expressed therein, the plaintiff's Motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Docket Entry No. 56 ) is hereby DENIED. This case is returne d to the Magistrate Judge for further handling under the original referral order. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 4/19/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

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

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

No. 3:16-cv-2470
Judge Trauger

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The plaintiff has filed a Motion for preliminary injunctive relief. See Docket Entry No. 56.
According to the Motion, the prisoner plaintiff was confined in a cell for four days where it was so
cold that there was “ice on the vent and the toilet and sink”. Id. at pg. 1. He asks that the defendants
be made to turn on the heat, fix the exhaust vent and appoint a federal liaison to monitor the
situation.
The defendants have filed a Response (Docket Entry No. 61) in opposition to the plaintiff’s
Motion. They deny that the plaintiff’s cell was ever so cold as to form ice on the vent, toilet or sink.
In support of their position, they have included with the Response an unsworn Statement (Docket
Entry No. 62) from Paul Denius, a Maintenance Supervisor at the Trousdale Turner Correctional
Center, saying that the temperature in the plaintiff’s cell during the dates in question was never set
below 68 degrees Fahrenheit.
On February 6, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket
1

Entry No. 64) addressing the plaintiff’s Motion. The Magistrate Judge concludes that the Court
should deny the plaintiff’s Motion. The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is based upon her
finding that the plaintiff “simply has not shown extraordinary and urgently compelling reasons
justifying the relief he seeks.” Id. at pg. 3. The plaintiff has filed no objections to the Report and
Recommendation.
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should only be granted if the
plaintiff carries his burden of proving that the circumstances clearly demand it. Overstreet v.
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). The grant or denial of a
preliminary injunction is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court. Virginia Railway
Co. v. System Federation, R.E.O., 300 U.S. 515, 551 (1937).
In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the Court must consider four
factors: (1) whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) whether the plaintiff is likely
to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief, (3) whether a preliminary injunction
would cause substantial harm to others, and (4) whether a preliminary injunction would be in the
public interest. Winter v. National Resource Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Although no
single factor is controlling, the likelihood of success is often the predominant consideration.
Gonzales v. National Board of Medical Examiners, 225 F.3d 620, 625 (6th Cir. 2000).
The Magistrate Judge correctly found that, at this stage of the proceedings, the plaintiff’s
likelihood of success is no greater than that of the defendants. There is no claim that the plaintiff was
denied drinking water or the use of a toilet for the four day period when his cell was allegedly too
cold. Thus, irreparable harm to the plaintiff has not been shown. Moreover, injunctive relief in this
instance would not only embroil the Court in the day-to-day management of the Trousdale Turner
2

Correctional Center, but could negatively impact the important public policies of comity and
federalism. See Dean v. Coughlin, 804 F.2d 207, 213 (2d Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, having conducted a de novo review of the plaintiff’s Motion, and in the absence
of any objection from the plaintiff, the Court finds that the plaintiff has shown no compelling reason
for this relief. The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of this Court. For the reasons expressed therein, the plaintiff’s Motion for
preliminary injunctive relief (Docket Entry No. 56) is hereby DENIED.
This case is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further handling under the original referral
order.
It is so ORDERED.

______________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge

3