Opinion
CIV-20-475-J
09-03-2020
JESSIE F. TRUITT, III, Plaintiff, v. DR. PATTI STEM, et. al.,, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. No. 1. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's "Request for Extension-of-Time 3rd Request for Extended Time." Doc. No. 22. The Motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned recommends the Motion be denied.
I. Background Information
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Joseph Harp Correctional Center ("JHCC") located in Lexington, Oklahoma. Doc. No. 1. By this action, Plaintiff asserts claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments claiming that he is being denied a Bible, he is not permitted to clean his cell, and he is not afforded adequate due process during disciplinary procedures. Id. at 5-7. In his current Motion, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to file an Amended Complaint and requests injunctive relief in the form of the Court directing JHCC officials to allow him additional time to complete legal documents. Doc. No. 22.
Plaintiff contends JHCC policy requires inmates be allotted six hours per week of "legal time" in order to work on documents for which there is a court deadline. Id. In a previous Motion, Plaintiff indicated that due to COVID-19 procedures, he is currently only allowed out of his cell one hour per day "except on weekends" and that is also the only time he is allowed access to a writing utensil. Doc. No. 19. In his current Motion, Plaintiff states that he is only permitted two hours per week to work on legal documents and requests the Court order JHCC officials to allow him "6 hours of legal time if theres (sic) a deadline order." Doc. No. 22.
II. Analysis
As an initial matter, the undersigned notes the Court previously ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint no later than August 25, 2020. Doc. No. 18. On August 24, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a Motion requesting an extension of time of thirty days to comply with said directive. Doc. No. 19. The Court granted Plaintiff's request in part, ordering him to file an Amended Complaint no later than September 15, 2020. Doc. No. 20. Plaintiff's current Motion repeats his request for an extension of his original deadline. Doc. No. 22. As the Court has already ruled on Plaintiff's request, this portion of Plaintiff's Motion should be denied as moot.
Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 21, 2020. Doc. No. 1. To date, Defendants have not been served. Thus, Plaintiff's request is properly viewed as seeking a temporary restraining order ("TRO") under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) rather than a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a). Rule 65(b) generally contemplates that a TRO will be issued only for a short term and "without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). This type of relief is considered drastic and is warranted only "to prevent a substantial risk of serious injury from ripening into actual harm." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845 (1994).
"A party may obtain a TRO without notice to the adverse party, but only if '(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant[ ] . . . certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.'" Truitt v. Bear, No. CIV-19-581-F, 2019 WL 6833722, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 20, 2019) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)). In his Motion, Plaintiff did not certify any efforts made to give notice to the parties. Doc. No. 22. "Because of the extraordinary nature of a TRO, it may only be granted when these procedural safeguards are 'scrupulously honored.'" Truitt, 2019 WL 6833722, at *1 (quoting 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure 2d § 2952). Further, "[e]ven though Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court may deny his motion on this procedural ground." Truitt, 2019 WL 6833722, at *1 (quotations omitted).
Additionally, "[a]n injunction grants intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be finally granted." Id. at *2 (citing De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945); Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir. 2010) ("[T]he movant must establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint." (quotations omitted)). "Neither a preliminary injunction nor a TRO are appropriate when the movant [] seeks intermediate relief beyond the claims of the complaint." Truitt, 2019 WL 6833722, at *2 (citing Hicks v. Jones, 332 F. App'x 505, 508 (10th Cir. 2009) (affirming district court's denial of motion for preliminary injunction or TRO seeking to "prevent his transfer out of the prison's protective custody unit, which apparently was slated for closure, but his complaint alleged that defendants failed to protect him from his cellmate"); McMiller v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. CIV-14-161-W, 2016 WL 1045567, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 15, 2016) (denying motions for preliminary injunction and TRO because: "The prison officials . . . conduct - refusal to provide certain prescribed medication - is not related to the events giving rise to this lawsuit.")). When the movant seeks intermediate relief beyond the claims in the complaint, the court has no authority to enter a TRO.
Plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit are related to his access to a Bible, cleaning his cell, and the level of due process provided during disciplinary matters. See generally Doc. No. 1. His request for injunctive relief pertains to the amount of time allotted to inmates to work on legal documents. Doc. No. 22. Thus, Plaintiff's request is not related to his original claims and the Court is without authority to grant an injunctive relief based on these allegations. See, cf., Farris v. Frazier, No. CIV-12-1099, 2014 WL 3749142, at *16 (W.D. Okla. July 29, 2014) ("Plaintiff's Amended Complaint raises no claims relevant to his legal mail issues and seeks no relief on those grounds, which are the only grounds raised in his request for [injunctive relief] . . . . Plaintiff therefore has not shown the requisite relationship between Defendants' conduct asserted in the Amended Complaint and the injury claimed in his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction."); see also, cf., Stouffer v. Eulberg, No. CIV-09-320-C, 2010 WL 567998, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 11, 2010) ("When the movant seeks intermediate relief beyond the claims in the complaint, the court is powerless to enter a preliminary injunction."). Thus, Plaintiff's request for a TRO must be denied.
The undersigned further notes it is unlikely Plaintiff could establish that he will suffer "irreparable harm" if the Court denies his request. Truitt, 2019 WL 6833722, at *1. Although Plaintiff contends that the currently allotted two hours per week (or, according to his previous Motion, one hour per day) is not sufficient to prepare legal documents, he has filed three Motions requesting an extension of time in the span of barely more than one week.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing findings, it is recommended Plaintiff's "Request for Extension-of-Time 3rd Request for Extended Time." (Doc. No. 22) be DENIED. Plaintiff is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by September 23rd , 2020, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The failure to timely object to this Report and Recommendation would waive appellate review of the recommended ruling. Moore v. United States of America, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991); see, cf., Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996) ("Issues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation are deemed waived.").
This Report and Recommendation does not dispose of all issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.
Dated this 3rd day of September, 2020.
/s/_________
GARY M. PURCELL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE