Morris v. Fletcher et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 17 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 24 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 3/11/2016. (slt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
TERAH C. MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MRS. FLETCHER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:15cv00675
ORDER
By: Norman K. Moon
United States District Judge

This matter is before me on plaintiff Terah C. Morris’s motions (Docket Nos. 11, 17, and
24) for preliminary injunctive relief. Morris seeks transfer to another facility and more access to
the law library. Upon review of Morris’s motion, I find no basis for granting preliminary
injunctive relief and, therefore, will deny his motion.
Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that courts should apply
sparingly. See Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 811 (4th Cir. 1991).
As a preliminary injunction temporarily affords an extraordinary remedy prior to trial that can be
granted permanently after trial, the party seeking the preliminary injunction must demonstrate:
(1) by a “clear showing,” that he is likely to succeed on the merits at trial; (2) that he is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in
his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The party seeking relief must show that the irreparable harm he
faces in the absence of relief is “neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent.” Direx
Israel, Ltd., 952 F.2d at 812.

Without a showing that the plaintiff will suffer imminent,

irreparable harm, the court cannot grant preliminary injunctive relief.
Inc. v. Caperton, 926 F.2d 353, 360 (4th Cir. 1991).

Rum Creek Coal Sales,

“The possibility that adequate

compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a later date . . . weighs heavily against

a claim of irreparable harm.” Va. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Kreps, 444 F.
Supp. 1167, 1182 (W.D. Va. 1978) (quoting Va. Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n. v. Fed. Power
Comm’n, 259 F.2d 921 (1958)).
In the motions for preliminary injunctive relief, Morris alleges that on December 18 and
28, 2015, he was transported to the Unit Manager’s office and was told him not to call mental
health unless he was suicidal and that if he was suicidal, they would “tie [him] up.” Morris
alleges that the Unit Manager said this in order to impede Morris’s progress with this case.
Morris asks the court to order his transfer to another facility. Morris also alleges that because he
is in a segregation cell and the prison is sometimes on lockdown, he does not have adequate
access to legal resources and a “law librarian only comes through once a week.” Morris asks the
court order the prison to provide him with more time to use the law library so that he can better
prepare his case. Having reviewed his motions, I conclude that Morris has not demonstrated that
he is likely to suffer “actual and imminent” irreparable harm in the absence of the preliminary
injunction.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Morris’s motions for preliminary

injunctive relief are DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the parties.
11th
ENTER: This _______ day of March, 2016.

2