United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TIMOTHY P. GREELEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
filed “Plaintiff's Brief In Support of Motion For a
TRO and Preliminary Injunction” (ECF No. 23).
Defendants Robert Axley, Patrick Dabb, Peter Yon, and Thomas
Hamel have filed a response (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff filed
this complaint asserting claims of retaliatory harassment for
request for injunctive relief asserts that he is being denied
access to the courts by individuals employed by the MDOC who
are not Defendants in this case. Plaintiff asserts that he
submitted a disbursement to make copies of his brief in
opposition to a summary judgment motion in case number
2:13-cv-327 to ARUS Mrs. Loop on August 17,
2016. Plaintiff alleges that he was told by Mrs.
Loop that she was not going to help him sue anyone. Plaintiff
further alleges that he was denied free writing materials in
violation of department policy. Plaintiff complains that he
was not given enough law library time, despite having
deadlines to meet.
Plaintiff complains that accountant M. Menguzzo conspired
with other staff to deny access to the courts by wrongfully
removing excessive amounts from Plaintiff's prison
account. Plaintiff also asserts that prison staff have issued
him false misconduct tickets. Plaintiff states that he is
entitled to a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction granting him additional law library time for legal
research and providing him with writing materials, legal
envelopes, and copies of his legal documents. Alternatively,
Plaintiff seeks 30 extra days to meet all filing deadlines.
Plaintiff has attached a proposed order which asks that this
Court order MDOC Director Heidi E. Washington, Warden Mrs.
Kathy Olson, ARUS Mrs. Loop, Lt. Mr. Sorensen, Lt. Mr. Busch,
Library tech. Mrs. T. Hill, and Library tech. Mrs. Hand show
cause why a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction should not enter.
issuance of preliminary injunctive relief is committed to the
discretion of the district court. Planned Parenthood
Association v. City of Cincinnati, 822 F.2d 1390, 1393
(6th Cir. 1987). In exercising that discretion, the court
must consider and balance four factors:
1. Whether the movant has shown a strong or substantial
likelihood or probability of success on the merits.
2. Whether the movant has shown irreparable injury.
3. Whether the preliminary injunction could harm third
4. Whether the public interest would be served by issuing a
Washington v. Reno, 35 F.3d 1093 (6th Cir. 1994).
These factors are not prerequisites to the grant or denial of
injunctive relief, but factors that must be carefully
balanced by the district court in exercising its equitable
where a prison inmate seeks an order enjoining state prison
officials, this Court is required to proceed with the utmost
care and must recognize the unique nature of the prison
setting. See Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432 at 438,
n.3, (6th Cir. 1984). See also Harris v.
Wilters, 596 F.2d 678 (5th Cir. 1979). It has also been
remarked that a party seeking injunctive relief bears a heavy
burden of establishing that the extraordinary and drastic
remedy sought is appropriate under the circumstances. See
Checker Motors Corp. v. Chrysler Corp., 405 F.2d 319 (2d
Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 999
(1969). See also O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz,
482 U.S. 342 (1986).
“initial burden” in demonstrating entitlement to
preliminary injunctive relief is a showing of a strong or
substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his
Section 1983 action. NAACP v. City of Mansfield,
Ohio, 866 F.2d 162, 167 (6th Cir. 1989). A review of the
materials of record fails to establish a substantial
likelihood of success with respect to plaintiff's claim
that the defendants have violated his federal rights.
Plaintiff has made no attempt to show that any of the named
Defendants retaliated against him. More importantly,
Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is unrelated to
his underlying lawsuit, and Plaintiff has not claimed that
any of the named Defendants are involved in the alleged
denial of his access to the courts. The Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over individuals that are not Defendants in this
lawsuit. Kroger Co. V. Malease Foods Corp., 437 F.3d
506, 510 (6th Cir. 2006); County Security Agency v. Ohio
Dept. of Commerce, 296 F.3d 477, 483 (6th Cir. 2002).
The issuance of an injunction against a party not served with
process is improper. Id. Furthermore, plaintiff has
failed to establish that he will suffer irreparable harm
absent injunctive relief.
in the context of a motion impacting on matters of prison
administration, the interests of identifiable third parties
and the public at large weigh against the granting of an
injunction. Any interference by the federal courts in the
administration of state prison matters is necessarily
disruptive. The public welfare therefore militates against
the issuance of extraordinary relief in the prison context,
absent a sufficient showing of a violation of constitutional
rights. See Glover v. Johnson, 855 F.2d 277, 286-87
(6th Cir. 1988). That showing has not been made here.
plaintiff has failed to meet the heavy burden establishing
the need for injunctive relief, I recommend that
plaintiff's motion ...