Chaisson v. Mark W. Michael's Unit Kitchen Food Service Management Staff for Ad Seg Administration et al
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF for 27 Report and Recommendations. The Magistrate's report is adopted and 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion for TRO filed by Queronde Chaisson and 11 Motion to Amend/Correct the Motion for Preliminary Injunction or TRO filed by Queronde Chaisson, are DENIED. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 8/29/17. (mjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MICHAEL UNIT KITCHEN FOOD
SERVICE STAFF, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17cv14
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
The Plaintiff Queronde Chaisson, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 complaining of alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. This Court ordered that the
matter be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3)
and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United
States Magistrate Judges.
I. The Motion for Injunctive Relief
Chaisson filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction stating
that the defendants are “terrorizing me by their reckless disregard for corn-product meals and
peanut-product meals and their untrained staff that they employ as duty for their kitchen departments
for administrative segregation building.” He requested that the Court order the prison officials not
to give him any foods containing corn products or sandwiches with peanuts or peanut butter.
Chaisson further requested that the Defendants administer training to uncertified food service
staff to be aware of meals and know how to properly correct calories per substitution, and that the
Defendants be ordered to employ food service staff certified to administer meals or be present to
help the correctional staff be aware of meals per prisoner. He further asked that: the Court order the
meal cart door be labeled so as to make the officers aware that certain trays are for certain cells; a
policy be created that fixes, changes, modifies, or corrects “allergy substitutional meals” and that
the Defendants provide him with a documents to sign at each meal attesting that the tray served
either was or was not in compliance with “allergy substitutional meal” standards.
In support of his motion, Chaisson asserts that his medical records from May of 2015 to
January of 2016 show a history of injury from security, the untrained food service staffing officers,
and the kitchen staff, but the warden’s office did not correct or change the policy.
Chaisson also filed a motion to amend his motion for injunctive relief, stating that on March
30, 2017, he was placed on a meal restriction called food loaf, which contained corn, to which he
is allergic. This restriction lasted until April 5, 2017. Over a week later, on April 14, 2017, he went
to the medical department and received two shots for congestion of his lungs, vocal chords, and ears.
Chaisson stated that he is being treated for gastroesophageal reflux disease without
esophagitis. He claims a history of seizures and asserts that he also has mental health diagnoses for
major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, mood disorder, cannabis dependence, bipolar
disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and borderline personality disorder.
II. The Response to the Motion
The Attorney General for the State of Texas filed a response asserting that the Court lacks
jurisdiction to enter a preliminary injunction because no defendants have been served or appeared
in the case. The Attorney General argued that Chaisson did not meet the prerequisites for injunctive
relief because he did not show a substantial likelihood that he would prevail on the merits nor a
substantial risk of irreparable injury. The Attorney General contended that the last grievance to
which Chaisson referred was in January of 2016 and there is no indication that Chaisson is in danger
of imminent harm. Finally, the Attorney General maintained that Chaisson did not show that his
requested relief is in the public interest because the orders he requests would cause a substantial
burden on the prison officials.
III. The Report of the Magistrate Judge
In reviewing the standards applicable to temporary restraining orders or motions for
preliminary injunctions, the Magistrate Judge stated that Chaisson did not allege, much less show,
that he had a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of his claims. The Magistrate Judge
also concluded that Chaisson did not show a substantial risk of irreparable injury. Although
Chaisson asserted that he was on food loaf from March 30 to April 5, 2017, he did not demonstrate
that he suffered any harm resulting from this. He stated that he went to the clinic on April 14, nine
days after the food loaf had ended. The Magistrate Judge stated that food allergies typically
manifest themselves within minutes to several hours after eating the food to which one is allergic,
and Chaisson did not show a connection between the food loaf and his visit to the infirmary over a
The Magistrate Judge further determined that Chaisson did not show that his proposed
injunction would not disserve the public interest because he did not show the type of extraordinary
circumstances required to justify federal court interference with the day-to-day operations of the
state prison. Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion for injunctive relief be
IV. Chaisson’s Objections
In his objections, Chaisson argues that it is not burdensome or substantial for the food service
kitchen staff to place their certified person to ensure that meals are placed out and that meals are
given to the correct inmate. He states that the laundry room has a staff member come to the
administrative segregation department to pass out clothing and this is not burdensome, substantial,
or harmful. The medical department has a staff member come to administrative segregation to meet
the needs of prisoners, and the law library makes deliveries in administrative segregation.
Chaisson contends that the Attorney General is just “stalking” [sic] and knows that Chaisson
can prevail on his claims. He complains that the Attorney General has refused to allow disclosure
so that Chaisson can support his claims and maintains that if the Attorney General can prove that
his health condition is wrong or false, or that he is misleading the Court, then he asks that his lawsuit
be dismissed with prejudice.
Chaisson states that all bread served at the Michael Unit has corn flour and that the
Defendants are the ones sending the meals to which he is allergic, which he claims is an act of
intentional deliberate indifference, causing a “pervasive risk of harm to truly terrify me of death, an
further deterioration of my health, and survival.” He argues that it is not his fault if the Defendants
lack the staff or the cost.
Next, Chaisson states that the Court can issue a restraining order before the Defendants are
served because there is an emergency situation, which can be remedied by ordering wheat bread.
He states that he has sought to be reasonable and respectful, but the problem occurs at each meal and
he has no other way to feed himself.
In an attached declaration, Chaisson asserts that he has been incarcerated at the Michael Unit
since November 30, 2016. On January 3 and January 9, 2017, he was placed on food loaf, which
contained corn meal, corn flour, and corn syrup. No substitutions were provided.
On March 30, 2017, Chaisson was again placed on food loaf. He contends that these meals
caused him to suffer lung congestion, vocal chord damages, itching, coughing, and breathing
difficulty. He went to the infirmary and received two shots. In July of 2017, he received a
medication called chlorpheneramine for allergic reactions.1
In order to obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, the moving party
must show: (1) a substantial likelihood that the moving party will prevail on the merits; (2) a
substantial threat that the moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted;
(3) that the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may do to the non-
Chlorpheneramine, which is sold over the counter under the brand name of Chlor-Trimeton,
is an antihistamine known in TDCJ-CID as “cold busters.” See Muldrow v. Berthot, et al., civil
action no. 6:12cv460, 2012 WL 3991366 (E.D.Tex., September 11, 2012).
movant; and (4) that the granting of the preliminary injunction will not dis-serve the public interest.
DSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 81 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir. 1996).
Preliminary injunctions are an extraordinary remedy and should only be granted if the
movant “clearly carries” the burden of proof on all four prerequisites. The decision to grant a
preliminary injunction is discretionary with the district court and reviewed on an abuse of discretion
standard, and the granting of a preliminary injunction “is to be treated as the exception rather than
the rule.” Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipeline Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621-22 (5th Cir.
The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Chaisson did not clearly carry his burden of
showing that he has a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of his underlying lawsuit.
He has not alleged injuries consistent with his claims of daily exposure to foods to which he is
allergic; as the Magistrate Judge observed, food allergies normally manifest themselves within a few
hours, but Chaisson did not go to the infirmary for nine days after his time on food loaf ended.
The Magistrate Judge also properly concluded that Chaisson has not shown a substantial
threat of irreparable injury. He contends that he suffered congestion, itching, coughing, and
breathing difficulty, for which he received shots in April and an over-the-counter cold medicine in
July. He makes no showing that these symptoms represent a substantial risk of irreparable injury
even assuming they could be traced to the food loaf which Chaisson was fed over a period ending
nine days earlier.
Likewise, Chaisson has not shown that his proposed injunctive relief would not disserve the
public interest. He seeks specific and detailed orders representing a high degree of interference in
the day-to-day operations of the state prison, and the Magistrate Judge correctly stated that federal
district courts should avoid becoming “enmeshed in the minutiae of prison operations.” Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 362, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606, citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,
562, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Chaisson’s objections are without merit.
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations to which the Plaintiff objected. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)
(district judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) Upon such de novo review,
the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the Plaintiff’s
objections are without merit. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate
Judge (docket no. 27) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
order (docket no. 10) and motion to amend motion for preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order, construed as an amended motion for preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order (docket no. 11) are DENIED.
So Ordered and Signed
Aug 29, 2017
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?