Reid v. Every Employee of the VA Dept. of Corrections

Filing 11

ORDER denying 2 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

FRANK E. REID,
Plaintiff,
v.
VADOC INVESTIGATOR BENTLEY,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

#:

s/A. Beeson

%&165:
$-&3,

Case No. 7:24-cv-00382
By: Michael F. Urbanski
Senior United States District Judge

ORDER
Frank E. Reid, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. His original complaint named as defendants “Every Employee” of the Virginia
Department of Corrections (VDOC), and it sought injunctive relief in the form of an “immediate
transfer” to Deerfield Correctional Center or “release from confinement in 60 days.” Compl.,
ECF No. 2, at 1. Based on the relief requested, the complaint also was docketed as a motion for
preliminary injunctive relief. ECF No. 2. 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 a preliminary injunction 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. In Winter, the Supreme Court “made clear that each of these four
factors must be satisfied to obtain preliminary injunctive relief” and that it is “unnecessary to
address all four factors when one or more ha[s] not been satisfied.” Henderson v. Bluefield

Hosp. Co., LLC, 902 F.3d 432, 439 (4th Cir. 2018) (emphasis in original) (citing Winter, 555 U.S.
at 20, 23).
Applying these principles, the court concludes that Reid’s motion must be denied. The
motion does not address any of the requirements set forth in Winter, much less make a clear
showing that Reid is entitled to the requested injunctive relief. To the extent that Reid seeks to
be released from incarceration, such relief is not available in a civil rights action under § 1983.
See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994) (“[H]abeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for
a state prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks immediate or
speedier release, even though such a claim may come within the literal terms of § 1983.”); see
also Lacy v. Indiana, 564 F. App’x 844, 845 (7th Cir. 2014) (“Section 1983 does not allow a federal
court to change a prisoner’s release date.”). To the extent that Reid alternatively seeks to be
transferred to Deerfield Correctional Center, “the decision about where to house any particular
inmate is generally committed to the discretion of the state’s prison officials, and a federal court
must show deference to such decisions.” Ofori v. Fleming, No. 7:20-cv-00344, 2021 WL
4527248, at *3 (W.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2021). While Reid may believe that he would receive more
favorable treatment at Deerfield, has not shown that the public interest would be served by
requiring prison officials to transfer him to that facility. See Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d 266, 274
& n.1 (4th Cir. 1995) (vacating a preliminary injunction and noting that the district court failed
to adequately account for “the degree to which the public interest is disserved when federal courts
assume the role of state prison administrators”); Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)
(observing that “in the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with
great caution because judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and
intractable problems of prison administration”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2

For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Reid’s motion for preliminary injunctive
relief, ECF No. 2, is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to Reid.
It is so ORDERED.
Entered: January 2, 2025
Mike Urbanski
Senior U.S. District Judge
2025.01.02 20:17:18
-05'00'

Michael F. Urbanski
Senior United States District Judge

3