United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
February 9, 2015
SHAUN C. ALLEN PLAINTIFF
JOHN STALEY, et al. DEFENDANTS
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JEROME T. KEARNEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The following partial recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge James M. Moody, Jr. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the
District Judge in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of
any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at
the hearing before the District Judge.
From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional
evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District
Mail your objections and " Statement of Necessity" to:
Clerk, United States District Court
Eastern District of Arkansas
600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149
Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
Plaintiff is an inmate incarcerated at the Faulkner County Detention Center, who filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging inadequate conditions of confinement while incarcerated at the Lonoke County Detention Center in July, 2014 (Doc. No. 4). Plaintiff asks for monetary relief from Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Order, which this Court construes as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 52), to which Defendants filed a Response (Doc. No. 56).
I. Motion for Injunctive Relief
In the present Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to order Faulkner County Sheriff Andy Shock to provide him with " adequate access" to the law library and to prevent him from impeding Plaintiff's right to a fair and speedy trial (Doc. No. 52). In Response, Defendants note that the Faulkner County Sheriff and the Faulkner County Detention Center (where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated) are not parties to this action. In addition, Defendants state Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support a finding that he will sustain irreparable harm if his Motion is not granted. In considering whether to grant injunctive relief, the Court must consider the following factors: " (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of the balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest." Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. CL Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc). No single factor is dispositive, but the movant must establish a threat of irreparable harm. Id. Without a finding of irreparable injury, a preliminary injunction should not be issued. Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 856 (8th Cir. 1999). " The burden of proving that a preliminary injunction should be issued rests entirely with the movant." Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995). The Court in Goff also addressed the district court's role in inmate applications for injunctive relief as follows: " [I]n the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution because 'judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison administration....[T]he courts should not get involved unless either a constitutional violation has already occurred or the threat of such a violation is both real and immediate.'" Id. at 520-21 (quoting Rogers v. Scurr, 676 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982)). Having reviewed Plaintiff's Motion and Defendants' Response, the Court finds Plaintiff provides no evidence of a threat of irreparable harm to support a hearing under Dataphase. In addition, the Faulkner County Sheriff and Detention Center are not parties to this action; if Plaintiff feels that his rights have been violated, he may file a separate lawsuit against those parties. Finally, the Court hesitates to involve itself in the problems of prison administration, absent more specific allegations to show that a " threat of such a violation is both real and immediate."
Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d at 520-21. Therefore, in light of the Dataphase considerations, and the standard set forth in Goff v. Harper, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to require a hearing under Dataphase; therefore, his Motion should be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Motion for Order, which this Court
construes as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 52), be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.