Johnson v. Thaler et al
Filing
23
OPINION AND ORDER denying 20 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian L Owsley) Parties notified.(amireles, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
VICTORIA DIVISION
KENNETH R. JOHNSON
TDCJ-CID #1536748
v.
RICK THALER, ET AL.
§
§
§
§
§
C.A. NO. V-10-025
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This is a civil rights action filed by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pending is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. (D.E. 20). For the reasons
discussed below, the motion is denied without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional
Institutions Division (“TDCJ-CID”), and he is currently incarcerated at the Stiles Unit in
Beaumont, Texas, although his complaint concerns events that occurred while he was confined at
the Stevenson Unit in Cuero, Texas. He filed his original complaint on March 30, 2010, naming
TDCJ-CID Director Rick Thaler, Angela Skinner, and Officer Adams as defendants. (D.E. 1).
Specifically, he alleged that his civil rights were violated based on an accident in which he was
involved during his transportation to another prison unit. See generally Johnson v. Thaler, No.
V-10-025, 2011 WL 3592384 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2011) (unpublished). His deliberate
indifference claims against Rick Thaler and Angela Skinner were dismissed. Id. at *3-4. His
claim against Officer Adams was retained and service was ordered. Id. at *4-6.
In the pending motion, Plaintiff is seeking a temporary restraining order because he is
being denied medical care at the Stiles Unit. (D.E. 20, at 1). Specifically, he alleges that he is
being denied medication as well as a back brace and boots for ankle support. He also asserts that
Stiles Unit officers are denying him the ability to receive help in the law library from other
inmates.
II. DISCUSSION
A.
A Temporary Restraining Order Is An Extraordinary Remedy.
A TRO “should be restricted to serving [the] underlying purpose of preserving the status
quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no
longer.” Granny Goose Foods v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415
U.S. 423, 439 (1974). Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
[a] temporary restraining order may be granted without written or
oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s attorney only if (1) it
clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the
verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that
party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s
attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which
have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the
claim that notice should not be required.
Royal Ins. Co. v. Quinn-L Capital Corp., 3 F.3d 877, 885 n.5 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65(b)). In Granny Goose Foods, the Supreme Court explained that when “a temporary
restraining order has been continued beyond the time limits permitted under Rule 65(b), and
where the required findings of fact and conclusions of law have not been set forth, the order is
invalid.” 415 U.S. at 443 n.17 (citations omitted); see also Phillips v. Chas. Schreiner Bank, 894
F.2d 127, 130 n.5 (5th Cir. 1990) (pursuant to Rule 65, a temporary restraining order will expire
no later than ten days after it is issued).
Here, Plaintiff alleges violations that occur while he is in custody at the Stiles Unit which
is in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. See 28 U.S.C.
2
§ 124(c)(2). Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. Instead,
he must file any such claims and requests for injunctive relief in that court.1
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, (D.E.
20), is DENIED without prejudice.
ORDERED this 3rd day of November 2011.
____________________________________
BRIAN L. OWSLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1
In the Order retaining his claims against Officer Adams, it was explained that “[t]o the extent plaintiff
seeks to raise claims against Stiles Unit officials, he is advised that he must do so in a separate civil action filed in
the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.” Johnson, 2011 WL 4592384, at *2 n.2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(2)).
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?