Moore v. Lindley et al

Filing 90

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING 74 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order 43 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Thad Heartfield on 3/3/22. (ljw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
KEENAN DEWAYNE MOORE

§

VS.

§

ANITRA LINDLEY, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:20-cv-121

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Keenan Dewayne Moore, an inmate formerly at the Polunsky Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, brought the
above-styled lawsuit.
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court.
The Magistrate Judge recommends denying plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record and pleadings. Plaintiff filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review
of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
After careful consideration, the court concludes plaintiff’s objections are without merit. As
set forth in the Report, plaintiff’s transfer to another facility has rendered his claims for injunctive
relief moot regarding the Polunsky Unit . See Herman v. Holiday, 238 F.3d 660, 665 (5th Cir. 2001).
Further, plaintiff has not carried his burden with respect to any of the elements required for
injunctive relief.

A party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction must establish the
following elements: (1) there is a substantial likelihood the party will prevail on the merits; (2) a
substantial threat exists that the party will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted;
(3) the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the party whom he seeks to enjoin; and (4)
the granting of the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. See Planned
Parenthood of Houston & Southeast Texas v. Sanchez, 403 F.3d 324, 329 (5th Cir. 2005). Due to
its extraordinary character, injunctive relief should not be granted unless the party seeking relief has
clearly carried the burden of persuasion as to all four elements. PCI Transportation Inc. v. Fort
Worth & Western Railroad Co., 418 F.3d 535, 545 (5th Cir. 2005).
In order to establish a claim for deliberate indifference to health and safety, plaintiff must
show prison officials were “deliberately indifferent” to the health or safety needs of an inmate.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Cantu v. Jones,
293 F.3d 839, 844 (5th Cir. 2002). “[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth
Amendment ... unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or
safety ... the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837.
Plaintiff has not clearly shown the defendants were aware he faced a substantial risk of
serious harm and disregarded the risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. Further,
plaintiff has not shown conduct rising “to the level of egregious intentional conduct.” See Gobert
v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 351 (5th Cir. 2006). Mere disagreement with the course of treatment
provided does not amount to deliberate indifference. Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th
Cir. 1997). Unsuccessful medical treatment, ordinary acts of negligence, or medical malpractice do
not constitute a cause of action under § 1983. Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 534 (5th Cir. 1999).

Even “gross negligence” does not establish deliberate indifference. Hernandez v. Tex. Dep’t of Prot.
and Reg. Servs., 380 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 2004). Absent exceptional circumstances, a prisoner’s
disagreement with his medical treatment is not actionable under § 1983. Banuelos v. McFarland,
41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995). Thus, plaintiff has not clearly carried his burden with respect to
his claims.
Here, plaintiff has not clearly carried his burden with respect to any of the required elements,
but has particularly failed to satisfy the first two prongs. As previously set forth, plaintiff has failed
to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Further, plaintiff has failed to establish that
a substantial threat exists that irreparable harm will result if relief is not granted. Accordingly, his
motion for injunctive relief should be denied.
ORDER
Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. It
is therefore
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (#43) is DENIED.
SIGNED this the 3 day of March, 2022.

____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge

3