Davis
v.
Antonelli

DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISIONAug 23, 2018
Civil Action No. 6:18-cv-1275-HMH-KFM (D.S.C. Aug. 23, 2018)

Civil Action No. 6:18-cv-1275-HMH-KFM

08-23-2018

Gregory Renard Davis, Petitioner, v. B.M. Antonelli, Respondent.


REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the court on the petitioner's motion for an "injunction in hope to incapacitate [his] anticipated transfer to another facility" (doc. 15). The petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2241. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c)(D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review post-trial petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.

"Preliminary injunctions are not to be granted automatically." Wetzel v. Edwards, 635 F.2d 283, 286 (4th Cir. 1980). Such relief regarding the administration of a prison should be granted only in compelling circumstances. See Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d 266, 269 (4th Cir. 1994). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order ("TRO") 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), reinstated in relevant part on remand by 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010). 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 petitioner has failed to meet the standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction. He states that he has been "placed in the sentry for a transfer to another federal prison facility," he wishes to "reserve all of the initial rights . .. at this level," and he asks that the court "incapacitate the anticipated transfer to another facility" (doc. 15 at 1). There is no constitutional right for a prisoner to be housed in a particular institution, at a particular custody level, or in a particular portion or unit of a correctional institution. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-48 (1983). The United States Supreme Court has emphasized that the "decision where to house inmates is at the core of prison administrators' expertise," McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 26 (2002), and that federal courts must give great consideration to the need to maintain order, discipline, and control. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558-62 (1974). The petitioner has been committed to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to serve his sentence, and BOP officials have discretion in where to place him.

Based upon the foregoing, the petitioner's motion (doc. 15) should be denied.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

s/ Kevin F. McDonald


United States Magistrate Judge August 23, 2018
Greenville, South Carolina

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

300 East Washington Street

Greenville, South Carolina 29601

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).