Miller v. Clarke et al
Filing
41
OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 7/13/2016. (slt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
EDWIN MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, ET AL.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 7:15CV00634
OPINION
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge
Edwin Miller, Pro Se Plaintiff.
The plaintiff, Edwin Miller, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, recently
filed an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging past violations of
his constitutional and statutory rights to free exercise of his Shia Muslim religious
dietary beliefs. Miller alleges, generally, that in November 2014, the defendants
wrongfully removed him from his religious diet for six months and denied him
participation in the annual Ramadan fast in 2015. He further alleges that meals
provided to him in 2014 and 2015 violated his religious beliefs and caused him to
have a heart attack. The defendants are currently scheduled to respond to the
Amended Complaint by mid-August 2016. Now Miller has filed a “MOTION
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION,” along with a proposed order granting such relief. After review of
the record, I conclude that the motion must be denied.
In the current motion, Miller repeats all of the allegations from his Amended
Complaint — about removal from his Shia Muslim diet in 2014, denial of
Ramadan participation in 2015, and the 2015 heart attack, and the allegedly
unsatisfactory responses from supervisory officials.
Miller also adds some
allegations. In November 2014, a K-9 officer allegedly allowed a dog to bite
Miller for no reason. (Miller Decl. Ex. A, at 3-4, ECF No. 38-2.) Since Miller
filed this lawsuit in November 2015, officers have allegedly harassed and
threatened him, refused his requests for administrative remedy forms, and denied
his application for a transfer to a lower security prison or for out-of-state
placement, despite the fact that a known enemy of Miller’s is currently
incarcerated at Red Onion State Prison (“Red Onion”). (Miller Decl. Ex. A, ECF
No. 38-2.) Miller asserts that officers took these adverse actions against him in
retaliation for the lawsuit.
He “fears” that without court intervention, the
defendants will encourage their friends and relatives employed by the prison
system to “threaten, harass, abuse author[it]y and set [him] up.” (Id. at 10-11.)
Miller states, “I truly believe” living at Red Onion or other prisons in the region
“will put my life in danger.” (Id. at 11.)
Based on these allegations, Miller seeks interlocutory injunctive relief
enjoining the defendants and all other prison officials from: denying Miller’s use
of the grievance procedures, denying him good conduct time, denying him a
-2-
transfer, miscalculating his security level score, or coming within fifty feet of
Miller or his personal property. (Mot., ECF No. 38-1.) Specifically, Miller seeks a
transfer to a lower security level prison in the eastern region of Virginia or in New
Jersey. (Id.)
I conclude that Miller has not alleged facts warranting the interlocutory
injunctive relief he seeks. The party seeking a 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.”1 Winter v. Natural
Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Miller’s factual allegations do not meet these four required elements. As an
initial matter, he presents no facts showing that any of the adverse actions of which
he complains were motivated in any respect by his pending lawsuit. Such merely
conclusory allegations of retaliation are not actionable under § 1983. Adams v.
Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir. 1994).
1
Therefore, Miller does not show any
Miller requests a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
Temporary restraining orders are issued only rarely, when the movant proves that he will
suffer injury if relief is not granted before the adverse party could be notified and have
opportunity to respond. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Such an order would only last until
such time as a hearing on a preliminary injunction could be arranged. As it is clear from
the outset that Miller is not entitled to a preliminary injunction, I find no basis upon
which to grant him a temporary restraining order.
-3-
likelihood of success on a retaliation claim or any imminent, irreparable harm he is
likely to suffer in the absence of court intervention.
Miller’s allegations also do not meet the three other requirements for
interlocutory relief. He does not describe any irreparable harm he is likely to
suffer from merely being verbally threatened or harassed, from being denied
administrative remedy forms, from retaining his current security classification or
housing assignment, or from not being granted a transfer at this time. Miller has
raised no claim in his Amended Complaint about the enemy inmate who is
allegedly incarcerated at Red Onion, and his current motion does not describe any
specific situation that has arisen, or is likely to occur, at Red Onion allowing his
enemy to harm him in any way. Moreover, if such a risk exists, Miller does not
indicate any attempt he has made to notify Red Onion officials or to seek
protection. Finally, I cannot find that the balance of the equities or the public
interest weigh in Miller’s favor so as to warrant the court’s interference in prison
officials’ discretionary administrative decisions regarding such matters as Miller’s
security level, his possible transfer, and his day-to-day activities.
For the stated reasons, I conclude that Miller has not made the necessary,
four-factor showing that his situation warrants interlocutory relief. Therefore, I
will deny his motion.
A separate Order will be entered herewith.
-4-
DATED: July 13, 2016
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge
-5-
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?