Opinion
21-12722
11-01-2022
MICHAEL DEANGELIS, Plaintiff, v. T. COBB, et al., Defendants.
Sean F. Cox Chief United States District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF NO. 47)
CURTIS IVY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights suit on November 16, 2021, without the assistance of counsel. (ECF No. 1). He alleged Eighth Amendment violations for denial of medical care and for failure to protect him from an assault. Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order and an injunction on October 26, 2022. (ECF No. 47).
For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion be denied.
A. Standards for Injunctive Relief
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs injunctions and temporary restraining orders. The decision to grant or deny injunctive relief falls solely within the discretion of the district court. See Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner, 543 F.3d 357, 361 (6th Cir. 2008). In the Sixth Circuit, the “same factors [are] considered in determining whether to issue a TRO or preliminary injunction.” Id. Thus the Court can evaluate both the temporary restraining order and the preliminary injunction by the same analysis. See also id. (applying the aforementioned factors to a temporary restraining order); Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002) (applying the same to a preliminary injunction). In exercising its discretion, a court must consider whether plaintiff has established these elements: “(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) whether issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of the injunction.” City of Pontiac Retired Emps. Ass'n v. Schimmel, 751 F.3d 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff, as the moving party, bears the burden of demonstrating entitlement to injunctive relief. Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 739 (6th Cir. 2000).
“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a trial on the merits.” S. Glazer's Distributors of Ohio, LLC v. Great Lakes Brewing Co., 860 F.3d 844, 848 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)). As explained by the Sixth Circuit, “a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and conduct asserted in the complaint.” Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 300 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)). Simply put, a plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary injunction on claims not pending in the complaint. See Ball v. Famiglio, 396 Fed.Appx. 836, 837 (3d Cir. 2010).
B. Discussion
Plaintiff's motion should be denied because it bears no relationship to the claims in the complaint. He seeks an injunction against defendants Cobb and White and non-parties for discarding his legal mail and documents. He asserts that these individuals targeted him to remove his legal documents and to prevent him from filing grievances. (ECF No. 47, PageID.515-16). The claims remaining in the complaint are for denial of medical care and for failure to protect him from an assault.
The assertions in the motion are unrelated to the complaint. As explained, this relationship is required before injunctive relief may be granted. See Colvin, 605 F.3d at 300. For example, in a similar case the plaintiff requested injunctive relief to prevent prison officials from removing his legal documents. That court denied the motion, explaining
Plaintiff's underlying claim in this case is based upon his contention that improper withdrawals were made from his inmate trust fund to pay restitution for his prior criminal conviction. On the other hand, as set forth above, his request for injunctive relief is based upon prison officials' alleged handling of legal mail and legal
documents, a matter unrelated to the underlying claim. If Plaintiff's allegations concerning prison officials' interference with his legal correspondence and documents are true, he may have separate potential claims regarding such matters. However, Plaintiff may not address those potential and unrelated claims in this pending action through a request for injunctive relief.Taylor v. United States, 2019 WL 8441696, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 6, 2019) (footnote omitted); report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 587650 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 6, 2020).
Because none of Plaintiff's claims bear a relationship to the removal of legal mail and documents, the motion should be denied.
C. Procedures on Objections
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order or injunction (ECF No. 47) be DENIED.
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service, as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Loc. 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.
Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,” etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), Local Rule 72.1(d). The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to Objection No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.