Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Morrow v. Matthews

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division

February 12, 2015


Berry Morrow, ADC #143825, Plaintiff, Pro se, Tucker, AR.

For Shelia Matthews, Sergeant, Tucker MSU, Stanley Robinson, Lieutenant, Tucker MSU, Kendrick Nelson, Captain, Tucker MSU, Maurice Williams, Major/CSO, Tucker MSU, William Straughn, Warden, Tucker MSU, Marvin Evans, Deputy Warden, Tucker MSU, Defendants: Nga Mahfouz, LEAD ATTORNEY, Arkansas Attorney General's Office, Little Rock, AR.



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 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 Judge.

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 Berry Morrow, an inmate at the Arkansas Department of Correction's Tucker Maximum Security Unit, filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on July 23, 2014. On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order for adequate legal and writing supplies. In essence, the motion is a motion for injunctive relief. Defendants filed a response in opposition, along with a brief in support, on February 9, 2015 (docket entries #22 & #23).

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. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) ( en banc ). No single factor is dispositive. Id. at 113. However, absent a showing of real or immediate threat, there can be no showing of irreparable injury. Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 856 (8th Cir. 1999) (quoting City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)).

" 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). In their response, Defendants have provided the affidavit of Jennifer Arledge, the administrative assistant to the Tucker Maximum Security Unit warden (docket entry #22-1). According to Arledge, Plaintiff has not requested library research materials or writing supplies since November of 2014. Although Arledge's affidavit and the attached supply report indicate that Plaintiff has been told to return certain legal materials before he can obtain other research materials, there is no indication that he cannot obtain writing supplies. Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff could obtain further research materials if he returns those he currently possesses. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate a threat of irreparable injury.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (docket entry #21) be DENIED.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.