Opinion
C. A. 21-2712-TMC-PJG
04-15-2022
Tequan Brown, Plaintiff, v. Charles Burton; Thomas Robertson; Shaereta Allen; Major S. Terry; Dion Tameka Gaines; S.C. Dept of Corrections, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAIGE J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Tequan Brown, a self-represented state prisoner, filed this civil rights action. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for a Report and Recommendation on Brown's motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. (ECF No. 24.) The defendants filed a response in opposition to the motion (ECF No. 42), and Brown replied (ECF No. 49). Having reviewed the record presented and the applicable law, the court finds that Brown's motion should be denied.
Brown, an inmate in the South Carolina Department of Corrections, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that Defendant Dion Tamkea Gaines is a threat to his safety due to Brown's allegations of corruption and criminality against Gaines. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1-2, 4-5, 14.) Brown made those allegations against Gaines when he was housed in the statewide protective custody unit at the McCormick Correctional Institution where Gaines is an officer. Brown claims that Gaines has had prison gangs threaten his life, and therefore, Brown should not be placed among the general prison population. Brown asks the court to order that he be placed back in statewide protective custody at McCormick Correctional Institution and have Gaines removed from her position or transferred to a different facility. (Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 24.)
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish all four of the following elements: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 346-47 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds by 559 U.S. 1089 (2010), reissued in part by 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010), overruling Blackwelder Furniture Co. of Statesville v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1977); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 65. A plaintiff must make a clear showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22; Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 345-46. Similarly, he must make a clear showing that he is likely to be irreparably harmed absent injunctive relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20-23; Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 347. Only then may the court consider whether the balance of equities tips in the plaintiff's favor. See Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 346-47. Finally, the court must pay particular regard to the public consequences of employing the extraordinary relief of injunction. Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 347 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 24).
The portions of Real Truth that were reissued by the Fourth Circuit are Parts I and II found at 575 F.3d at 345-47, which are the sections addressing injunctions that are relied upon in the court's Report and Recommendation.
Based on Winter, the Real Truth Court expressly rejected and overruled Blackwelder's sliding scale approach, which allowed a plaintiff to obtain an injunction with a strong showing of a probability of success even if he demonstrated only a possibility of irreparable harm. Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 347; Winter, 555 U.S. at 21-23.
The court concludes that Brown has not met his burden of showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. As the defendants point out, Brown is currently housed in the Special Concerns Offender Reintegration Program at Evans Correctional Institution, which is designated for inmates with safety concerns. (Richardson Aff. ¶ 4, ECF No. 42-2 at 1-2.) Therefore, Brown is not housed in the general prison population where he claims is his life is in danger. Also, Brown is not housed in the same prison as Defendant Gaines; therefore, Brown's request to have Gaines moved to a different unit or prison than Brown is moot. Cf. Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991) (finding a prisoner's transfer to a different facility mooted his claim for injunctive and declaratory relief) (collecting cases); Pevia v. Hogan, 443 F.Supp.3d 612, 633 (D. Md. 2020) (same). Consequently, Brown fails to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims for injunctive relief. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 22; Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 345-46.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the court recommends that Brown's motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. (ECF No. 24.)
Brown also filed a motion for a default judgment (ECF No. 46), which should be denied because the defendants have filed an answer and otherwise defended this action. Therefore, default and default judgment are not appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.' ” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).