Bowers v. Power et al

Filing 27

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket Entry No. 17) be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 6/28/2018. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)

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

DYLAN C. BOWERS
v.
BLAIR LEIBACH

)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:17-1599

TO: Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., Chief District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
By Order entered April 16, 2018 (Docket Entry No. 15), 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.
Dylan Bowers (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate confined at the Metro-Davidson County Detention
Facility (“Detention Facility”) in Nashville, Tennessee. In this lawsuit, he sues Detention Facility
Warden Blair Leibach (“Leibach”) for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that Leibach
violated his constitutional rights by retaliating against him for pursuing prison grievances at the
Detention Facility. Specifically, he alleges that Leibach threatened him and temporarily suspended his
grievance privileges. See Docket Entry No. 14 at 9-10. Process was issued to Leibach, who has
recently answered the complaint. See Docket Entry No. 20.1

1

Although Plaintiff made other allegations in his complaint, all claims and defendants other
than the single claim against Defendant Leibach were dismissed upon the Court’s initial review under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See Docket Entry No. 15 at 3.

Presently pending is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. See Docket Entry No. 17.
Plaintiff complains about the living conditions in Unit Juliet, which is his housing unit at the Detention
Facility. He alleges that the conditions are unnecessarily harsh, unfair, and violate his and other
inmates’ constitutional rights. Id. He seeks the unspecified intervention of the Court, presumably to
stop the manner in which inmates in the Unit Juliet are being treated. Attached to his motion is: (1) a
narrative of his allegations; (2) a list of 12 inmates who will be witnesses in support of a preliminary
injunction; and, (3) a copy of an internal policy memorandum concerning chapel services for inmates
in the housing unit. Id.
Defendant Leibach has filed a response opposing the motion. See Response in Opposition
(Docket Entry No. 21). Leibach denies the allegation that any inmates in Unit Juliet are being treated
in a manner that violates their constitutional rights and contends that: (1) Plaintiff has not supported
his motion with an affidavit or any supporting evidence and (2) Plaintiff has not established the
elements necessary to grant a preliminary injunction. Defendant Leibach supports his response with
the affidavit of Darrell Jones, a Unit Manager at the Detention Facility. See Docket Entry No. 22.
Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions 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), and are 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). Under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff seeking a
preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to

2

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat'l Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555
U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008).
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is appropriately denied. Initially, the Court
notes that Plaintiff has not made a request for any type of specific relief. Further, his motion is
unrelated to the narrow claim that is at issue in this action. A basic showing necessary for obtaining
a preliminary injunction is that there must be some relationship between the conduct giving rise to the
claim in the complaint and the injury sought to be prevented by the motion for preliminary injunctive
relief. See Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 299-300 (6th Cir. 2010). That link is lacking here.
Further, Plaintiff has not met his burden for the entry of a preliminary injunction. He has not
shown a strong or substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. He has also not shown
that he will suffer irreparable harm if the injunctive relief requested is not granted. The balancing of
harms required by the third factor does not weigh in favor of the requested relief, and Plaintiff has not
persuasively demonstrated that a public interest would be advanced by granting his request for a
preliminary injunction. National Hockey League Players Ass’n v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey Club,
372 F.3d 712, 720 n.4 (6th Cir. 2003). Finally, absent extraordinary and urgently compelling reasons,
the Court will not intervene in matters such as the day-to-day operations in a correctional facility. See
Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432, 438, n. 3 (6th Cir. 1984). Such reasons have not been shown by
Plaintiff.

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
injunction (Docket Entry No. 17) be DENIED.
3

ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of
Court within fourteen (14) days of service of this 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.
1981). Any response to the objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of such
objections. See Federal Rule 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.03(b)(2).

Respectfully submitted,

BARBARA D. HOLMES
United States Magistrate Judge

4