Garrett v. Thaler

Filing 115

OPINION AND ORDER denying 108 Motion for Preliminary Injunction.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(lcayce, 2)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
MICHAEL GARRETT,
Plaintiff,
VS.
WILLIAM STEPHENS,
Defendant.

May 23, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-70
§
§
§
§

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff, a prisoner confined at TDCJ-CID’s McConnell Unit, filed this lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 13, 2013, alleging that the schedule for running
the unit did not allow him sufficient sleep and he suffered fatigue and injury because of it
(D.E. 1). A motion for summary judgment on the merits of his claim is pending (D.E.
101). On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a letter request for a preliminary injunction (D.E.
108), claiming he was being retaliated against and not allowed sufficient time in the law
library.

He requests that the Court order TDCJ staff and F. Almenderez to stop

retaliating against him and to stop refusing him law library time (D.E. 108).
Standard
In order to obtain a preliminary injunction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a), the
applicant must demonstrate: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a
substantial threat that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied;
(3) the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction might cause the
defendant; and (4) the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Texans for Free
1/4

Enterprise v. Texas Ethics Comm’n, 732 F.3d 535, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2013). Injunctive
relief is an extraordinary remedy which requires the applicant to unequivocally show the
need for its issuance. Sepulvado v. Jindal, 729 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal
citations and quotations omitted), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 1789 (2014). Plaintiff must
carry the burden as to all four elements before a preliminary injunction may be
considered. Voting for America, Inc. v. Steen, 732 F.3d 382, 386 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotations and citations omitted).
Discussion
Plaintiff cannot meet his burden as to all of the four factors. As to the first factor,
Plaintiff must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his lawsuit.
Sepulvado, 729 F.3d at 417. The Court notes first that the injunctive relief requested by
Plaintiff is unrelated to his lawsuit. He alleges that F. Almenderez and other unit staff are
not permitting him sufficient law library time in retaliation for his lawsuit. The instant
lawsuit alleges sleep deprivation, and the named Defendant William Stephens is the
Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Criminal Institutions Division.
Plaintiff has not named in this lawsuit Almenderez or any other unit staff he claims are
retaliating against him. Plaintiff has not described any facts that support his opinion that
he is being subject to retaliatory actions. But for purposes of this motion, the Court will
assume that Plaintiff can demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
As to the second factor, Plaintiff has not alleged any irreparable harm for which
there is no remedy at law, such as monetary compensation. Deerfield Med. Center v. City
of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff has not been denied
2/4

access to the courts. Plaintiff’s difficulties in scheduling law library time have not
resulted in any harm, injury, or prejudice to him. The filing of this lawsuit, the granting
of in forma pauperis status, the setting of an evidentiary hearing, and the filing of
motions citing authority are all evidence that Plaintiff has access to law library time
sufficient to address this lawsuit. He has missed no deadlines. See Lewis v. Casey, 518
U.S. 343, 355 (1995) (in an access to courts claim, inmate must show injury, i.e. that he
was denied the tools to attack his sentence, directly or collaterally, or denied the tools to
challenge conditions on confinement). Plaintiff timely filed his response to the motion
for summary judgment, and did not complain that he was unable to sufficiently research
the issues raised in the motion for summary judgment. With his response, Plaintiff was
able to obtain and to file affidavits signed by 46 other inmates. At this point in the
litigation, Plaintiff has no immediate need for law library time, and his generalized
complaints about the quality of the law library materials is simply irrelevant. Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate any irreparable injury.

Plaintiff is free to exhaust his

administrative remedies as to any perceived retaliatory actions against him and to file a
lawsuit related to those claims.
On the third and fourth factors, Plaintiff has failed to show that his interest in
additional law library time outweighs the interest of the prison in maintaining safety and
security at the prison. Ordering the law library personnel to adhere to a specific schedule
of law library time would utilize valuable prison resources, and it would not serve the
public’s interest for the courts to micro-manage the movement and assignment of
prisoners. See Kahey v. Jones, 836 F.2d 948, 951 (5th Cir. 1988) (federal courts defer to
3/4

prison administrators concerning day-to-day operations in absence of a constitutional
violation). Moreover, Plaintiff’s complaint that he may suffer irreparable harm in the
future is speculative only.
Plaintiff has not carried his burden as to all four factors. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
letter motion for a preliminary injunction (D.E. 108) is denied.
ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 2016.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4/4