Davis v. Stephens et al
Filing
23
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; denying 22 MOTION Letter Motion (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(lcayce, 2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
KIRK DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-38
§
§
§
§
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Plaintiff, a TDCJ-CID inmate presently confined at the Diboll Unit in Diboll,
Texas, filed this lawsuit on February 5, 2014, complaining about the conditions of
confinement and medical care he received while confined at the Garza East Unit in
Beeville, Texas (D.E. 1, 11, 12, 13). Service of process was ordered on May 13, 2014
(D.E. 15).
Plaintiff has filed a letter motion (D.E. 22).
Though it is difficult to
understand his pleading, he appears to be requesting injunctive relief in the form of an
order to TDCJ officials not to transfer him from the Diboll Unit to another TDCJ unit.
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. Sepulvado v.
Jindal, 729 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotations omitted), cert.
1/3
denied, 134 S.Ct. 1789 (2014).
Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy which
requires the applicant to unequivocally show the need for its issuance. Texans for Free
Enterprise v. Texas Ethics Comm’n, 732 F.3d 535, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2013). 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
Assuming, without deciding, that Plaintiff could demonstrate a likelihood of
success on the merits, he cannot demonstrate irreparable harm. Irreparable harm is harm
for which there is no remedy at law, such as monetary compensation. Deerfield Medical
Center v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328, 338 (5th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff has cited
to no authority holding that a transfer to another unit amounts to irreparable harm. If
Plaintiff is transferred, he should notify the court of his new mailing address. If the
transfer causes a delay in preparation of pleadings for a deadline, Plaintiff can request an
extension of time to meet the deadline.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations of potential harm that might result from a transfer
are speculative only, and do not amount to constitutional violations. Plaintiff states he
fears a transfer – he has not been told he will be transferred. In the absence of a
constitutional violation, federal courts are reluctant to interfere in the internal affairs of
local jails or state prisons. See Kahey v. Jones, 836 F.2d 948, 950 (5th Cir. 1988) (federal
courts defer to prison administrators concerning day-to-day operations). Interference
with inmate unit assignments would not be in the public’s interest and it would be a waste
2/3
of judicial resources to micro-manage the prison unit assignments. Plaintiff has not
demonstrated he is entitled to a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden on the four factors, and his request for a
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (D.E. 22) is denied.
ORDERED this 20th day of June, 2014.
___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3/3
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?