Opinion
C. A. 21-649-RBH-PJG
01-06-2022
Keith A Smyth, Plaintiff, v. Bryan Stirling, Director; Chelsea Johnson, Program Manager, I.C.S., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAIGE J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Keith A Smyth, a self-represented state prisoner, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's motions for a preliminary injunction and for judgment as a matter of law. (ECF Nos. 42 & 48.) The defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 46.)
The defendants state that records obtained from the South Carolina Department of Corrections indicate that Plaintiff prefers the use of the pronouns “she” and “her.” (See ECF No. 46 at 1 n.1.)
A. Motion for Preliminary Injunction
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish all four of the following elements: (1) she is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in her 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). 1 A plaintiff must make a clear showing that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her claim. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22; Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 345-46. Similarly, she must make a clear showing that she 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 she demonstrated only a possibility of irreparable harm. Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 347; Winter, 555 U.S. at 21-23.
At the time she filed this case, Plaintiff was an inmate at the Kirkland Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”). Plaintiff is now housed at the Tyger River Correctional Institution of SCDC. (ECF No. 57.) In her motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff appears to claim that Defendant Johnson and mental health officers and counselors in the Intermediate Care Services program at Kirkland are denying her access to sports and activities, preventing her from signing up for program activities, mistreating her and making her feel unwelcome, preventing her from accessing the canteen or getting a job, and retaliating against her for filing grievances by leaving her in her cell. (Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 42 at 1-3.)
“The doctrine of mootness constitutes a part of the constitutional limits of federal court jurisdiction.” Porter v. Clarke, 852 F.3d 358, 363 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Simmons v. United Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 763 (4th Cir. 2011)). 2 “[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the out-come.” Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). Here, Plaintiff asks the court to enjoin Defendant Johnson and other non-party individuals from the behaviors and actions listed above, but Plaintiff is now housed in a different prison. Because the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff is now unavailable, Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is moot. See 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 and collecting similar cases).
To the extent Plaintiff asks the court to prevent her transfer out of Kirkland, it is well-settled that a prisoner has no constitutional right to be housed in the facility of her choice, at a particular custody level, or in a particular portion or unit of a correctional institution. See Olim v. Wakineknoa, 461 U.S. 238 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976) (holding that the Constitution's Due Process Clause does not “protect a duly convicted prisoner against transfer from one institution to another within the state prison system”); McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 39 (2002) (noting that the “decision where to house inmates is at the core of prison administrators' expertise”).
B. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
In her motion, Plaintiff appears to argue that she is entitled to judgment as a sanction because the defendants made an incorrect statement in their Answer. (ECF No. 48.) However, even if true, this allegation does not entitle Plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law, and accordingly her motion should be denied. 3
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the court recommends Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for judgment as a matter of law be denied. (ECF Nos. 42 & 48.) 4
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). 5