Landeck v. Clarke

Filing 28

OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 6/27/2018. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER TODD LANDECK,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:17CV00512
OPINION
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

The pro se plaintiff, Christopher Todd Landeck, has filed a second Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. After review of the
record, I conclude that the motion must be denied.
Landeck brought this lawsuit claiming that prison officials had wrongfully
delayed delivery of a magazine necessary to his religious practice. In his recently
filed Second Amended Complaint, he now alleges that state prison officials at three
different Virginia Department of Corrections (“VDOC”) prisons have retaliated
against him in various ways for filing this lawsuit. The defendants are to respond
in August 2018 to Landeck’s claims as amended.
The instant motion for interlocutory injunctive relief concerns yet another
allegation of retaliation.

VDOC Chief of Corrections Operations, A. David

Robinson, issued a memorandum on June 7, 2018 (two days after Landeck filed his
Second Amended Complaint), notifying all VDOC Operational Unit Heads that

after July 7, 2018, inmates would no longer be allowed to save documents to
prison law library computers. Robinson further instructed that any inmate’s legal
documents currently saved to a library computer should be printed out for him at
no cost. This new practice, according to Robinson, is one of several changes to
“be made to ensure the safety and security of offender technology.” Mot. TRO
Attach. A, ECF No. 27.
Landeck states that he has received printouts of his legal documents. He
fears that without the ability to save his documents to law library computers in the
future, however, he will be forced to handwrite them instead. Because he suffers
from “a diagnosed acute form of arthritis which affects his thumbs and wrists,”
writing by hand is painful for him, but he can “type on a computer keyboard with
relative ease.” Mot. TRO 2, ECF No. 27. Landeck contends that Robinson’s
action constitutes retaliation for this lawsuit, in violation of the First Amendment,
and discrimination on the basis of Landeck’s disability, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
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. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Such interlocutory injunctive relief is “an extraordinary
-2-

remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled
to such relief” under this four-part analysis. Id. at 22. I cannot find that Landeck
has shown grounds for the relief he seeks.
Landeck’s motion is premature and insufficiently supported by facts. As he
admits, he does not know from Robinson’s memorandum how inmates will be
allowed to create legal documents in the future. His worries about being forced to
handwrite his documents are, therefore, speculative at best. Furthermore, Landeck
has not yet had time to ask prison officials for accommodations of his medical
condition or to exhaust administrative remedies about any of the issues he raises in
this motion, as required before filing a court action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
Accordingly, Landeck has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits
or any imminent danger of irreparable harm. 1 Based on his failure to make the
necessary showing on these facets of the Winter analysis, I cannot find that the
requested interlocutory relief is warranted.
A separate Order will be entered herewith.
DATED: June 27, 2018
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

1

For the same reasons, I find any attempt to amend to add new retaliation or
ADA claims to the pending lawsuit is futile. Therefore, I will not construe Landeck’s
submission as a Motion to Amend.
-3-