Godfrey v. Unnamed
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 6/30/2015. (tvt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
ALLEN LEE GODFREY, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNNAMED,
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 7:15CV00350
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By: Norman K. Moon
United States District Judge
This matter is before me on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed Allen Lee
Godfrey, Sr., a Virginia inmate at proceeding pro se. Godfrey states his fear that because of his
prior litigation efforts, he will be harmed by unnamed official(s) in the Virginia Department of
Corrections (“VDOC”), where he is now incarcerated. Godfrey first filed this motion in both of
his two pending civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Nos. 7:13CV00454 and
7:14CV00476) against Roanoke City police officers and Roanoke City Jail officials.
I
concluded, however, that this new submission raised issues unrelated to Godfrey’s prior actions.
Accordingly, I construed the motion as a new and separate civil rights complaint seeking
permanent injunctive relief and a motion for interlocutory relief, and directed the clerk to file
these in a new case, as referenced in the heading of this memorandum opinion. After review of
Godfrey’s allegations in support of his motion, I conclude that preliminary injunctive relief is not
warranted and will deny Godfrey’s motion.
I.
Godfrey seeks his immediate transfer to a protective custody unit, perhaps in another
state under an assumed name. He states that correctional officers and other inmates have labeled
him as a “snitch and other things that just are not true.” Godfrey “feels his life may be/is in
danger within the [VDOC] due to the continued litigation” against individuals in Roanoke. He
believes that while he was confined at Deerfield Correctional Center, someone was keeping him
under surveillance from outside the prison fence, while he worked outside, lay in his bunk, or
showered. Godfrey told Deerfield staff that some officers, kitchen workers, and inmates had
made “direct and indirect threats to [his] life/personal safety.” Godfrey states his belief that
these individuals “were actually soliciting for someone to poison, stab/murder/assassinate” him.
At Deerfield, and again after he was transferred to the mental health unit at Powhatan
Correctional Center, Godfrey filed requests for protective custody, based on these fears.
Officials have refused to place him in protective custody and have told him that when he leaves
Powhatan, he will likely return to the general population at Deerfield.
II.
The party seeking the preliminary injunction must make a clear showing “that he is likely
to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest.”
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
“Issuing a
preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with” the
fact that such injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a
clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. (emphasis added).
Under this stringent standard, the court cannot find that Godfrey has alleged facts
warranting the extraordinary relief he seeks. Godfrey offers nothing more than his nebulous,
personal fears of reprisal for his lawsuits, despite the fact that his lawsuits do not concern any
VDOC employee. He does not state the nature of the threats individuals have allegedly made
against him or describe facts giving any reasonable basis for his fears of being under surveillance
2
or in danger of being poisoned or otherwise physically harmed by anyone. In short, Godfrey
presents no factual support for his “feeling” that his life is in danger in the VDOC because of his
litigation efforts or for any other reason. Accordingly, he fails to demonstrate that he is entitled
to the preliminary injunctive relief he seeks.
For the reasons stated, I will deny Godfrey’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. An
appropriate order will issue this day.
If Godfrey wishes to pursue this § 1983 action against specific individuals for allegedly
failing to protect him, he must file an amended complaint, naming individual officers as
defendants and stating supporting facts. By separate order, the court will also require him to
demonstrate that he has exhausted his administrative remedies regarding any such claim and to
provide financial information as required for him gain authorization to pay the filing fee through
installments. In the alternative, Godfrey may move for voluntary dismissal of this case without
prejudice and file a new complaint, once he has completed the exhaustion process.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this memorandum opinion and the accompanying
order to Godfrey.
30th
ENTER: This _____ day of June, 2015.
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?