Williams et al v. Weatherford et al

Filing 24

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion for a TRO be denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 12/14/2016. (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
AT NASHVILLE
JUSTIN LEE WILLIAMS and
GIOVANNI QUINTANILLA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs
v.
SONNY WEATHERFORD, et al.,
Defendants
TO:

No. 3:16-2797
Judge Trauger/Brown

THE HONORABLE ALETA A. TRAUGER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Plaintiff, Justin Williams, has filed a motion for a

temporary

restraining

order

to

enjoin

the

Defendants

from

continuing to enforce their restriction of all non-legal mail to be
in the form of a metered or prestamped post card (Docket Entry 20).
For the reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that
the motion be denied as moot.
BACKGROUND
The Defendants Williams and Quintanilla filed a complaint
in this matter on October 25, 2016. In their complaint they allege
that in April 2016 the Sumner County Jail officials implemented a
new policy regarding incoming nonlegal correspondence They allege
that the policy restricts the nonlegal mail to “metered post card
only.” They allege that the previous policy allowed them to receive
letter correspondence from their loved ones and for up to five
pictures to be included. They allege the new policy requires the
inmates’ loved ones to purchase premium post cards from the third-

party online company to be allowed to send pictures to inmates and
limit correspondence to only post cards. They allege it also
prohibits inmates from receiving magazines and other periodicals.
In

their

complaint

the

Plaintiffs

requested

an

injunction

compelling the Defendants to rescind the policies, $50,000 in
compensatory damages, and an order declaring that their rights had
been violated.
The case was given an initial review pursuant to the
Prison Litigation Reform Act and found to allege a claim that was
not facially frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1950A (Docket Entry 4).
The Defendants filed an answer (Docket Entry 18) in the matter.1
The Defendants responded to the motion for temporary restraining
order (Docket Entry 21), pointing out that the motion for a TRO was
only signed by the Defendant Williams and that since he is no
longer an inmate at the Sumner County Jail, any request for
injunctive relief is moot. There was no reply. The matter is ready
for a decision.

1

The Magistrate Judge has serious concerns about the nature of the
answer. It appears that counsel has used boilerplate pleadings and that
there is no good faith basis for many of the special and affirmative
defenses alleged. Counsel should carefully review Rule 11 and file an
amended answer unless counsel is able to demonstrate a good faith basis
for statements that the complaint violates the applicable statute of
limitations, that the injuries alleged are due to the sole negligence of
the Plaintiffs, that the injuries alleged are due to the negligence of
others or third parties to whom the Defendants do not respond at law, and
that somehow the Plaintiffs’ own fault or negligence constituted 50% or
more of the total fault or negligence causing and contributing to the
alleged damages under the Doctrine of Comparative Fault, and that the
Plaintiffs are guilty of fault or negligence which contributed to their
own damages by a percentage from 1% to 49%, and that the Plaintiffs have
made a claim for punitive damages.

2

LEGAL DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge believes that the Defendant has
correctly stated the law in this matter.2 The motion for a TRO is
only signed by the Plaintiff Williams. As a pro se Plaintiff
Williams may not represent his co-plaintiff or other prisoners. The
record is clear that Williams has now been transferred to BCCX and
is no longer subject to the restrictions of the Sumner County Jail.
Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996). In view of a lack
of standing by the sole moving party, Plaintiff Williams, a further
analysis of the standards required for granting a TRO is not
needed. The Magistrate Judge would note that serious questions have
been raised about the constitutionality of similar jail policies.
The American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan v. Livingston
County,

796

F.3d

636

(6th

Cir.

2015).

Whether

the

extensive

discussion of the policy as it relates to legal mail would apply to
nonlegal mail is an open question.
RECOMMENDATION
For

the

reasons

stated

above,

the

Magistrate

Judge

recommends that the motion for a TRO be denied as moot.
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

2

The Plaintiffs are reminded that since they filed the case jointly
any motion or response concerning both of them must be signed by both.

3

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 14th day of December, 2016.
/s/
Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

4