Moss v. Trent et al

Filing 161

ORDER denying 145 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Senior Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 1/2/2025. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party/Parties via US Mail)(aab)

$-&3,h4
0''*$&
64
%*45
$0635

"5
30"/0,&
7"
'*-&%
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
January 03, 2025
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA -"63"
"
"645*/
$-&3,

ROANOKE DIVISION

KEITH EDWARD MOSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIM TRENT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

#:

s/A. Beeson

%&165:
$-&3,

Case No. 7:23-cv-00110
By: Michael F. Urbanski
Senior United States District Judge

ORDER
Keith Edward Moss, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against various current and former employees of the Blue Ridge Regional Jail
Authority. The case is presently before the court on Moss’s self-styled “motion for order to
compel,” ECF No. 145, in which he seeks an order compelling Virginia Department of
Corrections (VDOC) officials to provide him with all of his personal property, including his legal
materials. He alleges that he “has no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the
wrongs” described in the motion and that he will be “irreparably injured” unless the court issues
the requested order. Id. at 2. The court construes the motion as a request for preliminary
injunctive relief. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a
clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Defense Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief “must establish 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.” Id. at 20. The plaintiff must also “establish a relationship between the injury
claimed in the [plaintiff’s] motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Omega World

Travel v. Trans World Airlines, 111 F.3d 14, 16 (4th Cir. 1997) (quoting Devose v. Herrington,
42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)). “This requires a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in
a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth in the underlying complaint itself.” Pac.
Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). A preliminary
injunction “may never issue to prevent an injury or harm which not even the moving party
contends was caused by the wrong claimed in the underlying action.” Omega World Travel, 111
F.3d at 16.
Applying these principles, the court concludes that Moss’s motion must be denied.
Among other deficiencies, the motion does not seek to prevent harm caused by the conduct
alleged in the complaint. Instead, the motion seeks preliminary injunctive relief based on entirely
new allegations of misconduct by correctional officials who are not parties to this action. Even if
the new allegations are true, they do not provide a basis for preliminary injunctive relief in this
action. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC, 810 F.3d at 636 (explaining that “new assertions of
misconduct . . . do not support preliminary injunctions unrelated to the conduct asserted in the
underlying complaint”).
For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Moss’s motion, ECF No. 145, is
DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to Moss.
It is so ORDERED.
Entered: January 2, 2025
Mike Urbanski
Senior U.S. District
Judge
2025.01.02 19:54:04
-05'00'

Michael F. Urbanski
Senior United States District Judge
2