Goins v. Flemming et al
Filing
24
OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 7/12/2016. (tvt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
CHAD E. GOINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
L. FLEMMING, ET AL.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 7:16CV00154
OPINION
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge
Chad E. Goins, Pro Se Plaintiff.
The plaintiff, Chad E. Goins, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that officials at Wallens Ridge
State Prison are not properly accommodating his religious practices. The court
recently granted the defendants until early August 2016 to respond to Goins’s
complaint.
Goins has now filed a “MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT” to add retaliation claims based on events that have
occurred since he filed the initial § 1983 complaint at the end of March 2016.
After review of the record, I conclude that the motion must be denied.
In his proposed amendment, Goins alleges that on April 25, 2016, two
officers refused his requests for administrative remedies forms. The officer who
refused Goins’ request for an informal complaint form allegedly said, “Oh you like
to write stuff up. . . . That will get you a charge and moved to ‘D’ building
(segregation).” (Mot. 2, ECF No. 16.) Goins states that he has been charge-free
for more than two years, but fears Wallens Ridge officers will bring a disciplinary
charge against him as the one officer threatened to do, and he will be placed in
segregation.
The grievance coordinator told Goins to write to the grievance
department for forms. He allegedly did so, but then waited two months without
receiving the requested form.
Based on these allegations, Goins seeks a “preliminary injunction effective
immediately,” directing that the defendants and all other prison officials are
“restrained from any further harassment, discrimination, or any psychological
abuse to the plaintiff for litigating of these violations . . . .” (Mot. 2-3, ECF No.
16.)
I conclude that Goins has not alleged facts warranting the interlocutory
injunctive relief he seeks or the requested amendment.
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.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Goins fails to state facts meeting these four required elements. As an initial
matter, his allegations that the officers’ actions were motivated in any respect by
this pending lawsuit are merely conclusory, and therefore, do not indicate any
-2-
likelihood of success on a retaliation claim. See Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th
Cir. 1994). Similarly, Goins’s allegations do not state the necessary elements of a
§ 1983 retaliation claim against any defendant in this lawsuit, and denial of prison
grievance forms is not a constitutional violation actionable under § 1983. Id. at 75.
Therefore, I will deny as futile Goins’s motion seeking to add such claims to his
§ 1983 lawsuit.
Finally, Goins’s allegations 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 denied administrative remedy forms or from the officer’s
apparently empty threat of a disciplinary charge and segregation. I also cannot
find that the balance of the equities or the public interest weigh in Goins’s favor so
as to warrant the court’s interference in prison administration in these
circumstances.
For the stated reasons, I conclude that Goins has not made the necessary,
four-factor showing that his situation warrants interlocutory relief or that he has
grounds for an amendment. Therefore, I will deny his motion.
A separate Order will be entered herewith.
DATED: July 12, 2016
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge
-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?