United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
PAUL L. MALONEY JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TIMOTHY P. GREELEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a civil rights action brought by state prisoner Douglas
Cornell Jackson pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
filed an “Emergency Motion to Stop Threats of Death,
Physical Harm and Other Harassment During the Pendency of
this Civil Action by Prison Guard Douglas Black.” (ECF
No. 39). The undersigned views this motion as a motion for
preliminary injunctive relief. Defendants have responded.
(ECF No. 40). For the reasons stated below, the undersigned
recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion.
relief is “an extraordinary remedy which should be
granted only if . . . the circumstances clearly demand
it.” Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). The
issuance of such relief is committed to the discretion of the
district court. Planned Parenthood Ass'n 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
powers. Id. Moreover, where a prison inmate seeks an
order enjoining state prison officials, the 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
motion, Plaintiff complains that Corrections Officer Black
has been harassing and threatening him at Oaks Correctional
Facility. The alleged events occurred between November 4,
2018 and December 25, 2018. Plaintiff requests that the Court
order Corrections Officer Black to stop harassing and
threatening him. However, Corrections Officer Black is not a
defendant in the underlying case. And, as noted by the Court
in its screening opinion, “[t]he Court does not have
jurisdiction over individuals that are not parties to this
action.” (ECF No. 12, PageID.636 citing Zenith
Radio Corp., v. Hazeltine Research Inc., 395 U.S. 100
(1969)). In fact, Plaintiff's injunctive relief request
is entirely unrelated to his underlying claims. While
“[a] preliminary injunction is always appropriate to
grant intermediate relief of the same character as that which
may be granted finally, ” an injunction should not
issue when “it deals with a matter lying wholly outside
the issues in the suit.” De Beers Consolidated
Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945).
addition, 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, the undersigned recommends
that Plaintiff's request (ECF No. 39) be denied.
TO PARTIES: Objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the
Court within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report and
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Failure to file timely
objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to