United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
KUSHAWN S. MILES #237011, Plaintiff,
JENNA HELINSKI, et al., Defendants.
PAUL L. MALONEY JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TIMOTHY P. GREELEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
filed a “Verified Motion for Preliminary Injunction
and/or Temporary Restraining Order.” (ECF No. 2.)
Plaintiff's remaining retaliation claims are against
Defendant Bigger. Plaintiff's motion requests an order to
stop all Defendants and all employees of the Chippewa
Correctional Facility from using inappropriate language,
retaliating, writing false misconducts, subjecting him to
mental distress, threatening, and intimidating him. Plaintiff
requests that a Special Problem Offender Notice be placed in
his file for each Defendant. Plaintiff asks for an order
requiring special care when MDOC employees conduct searches
of his cell. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have failed to
protect Plaintiff and other prisoners.
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.
“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.
Moreover, Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief against
individuals who are not Defendants in this case. The Court
does not have jurisdiction over individuals that are not
parties to this action. Zenith Radio Corp., v. Hazeltine
Research Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). Plaintiff's
request for injunctive relief against Defendant Bigger is
unrelated to the underlying action in this case. De Beers
Consol. Mines Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220
(1945) (preliminary injunction appropriate to grant relief of
“the same character as that which may be granted
finally, ” but inappropriate where the injunction
“deals with a matter lying wholly outside of the issues
in the suit.”) In addition, Plaintiff has made no
attempt to support his motion. Plaintiff's request for an
injunction is simply to prevent speculative future conduct.
Further, Defendant is already bound by the Constitution, and
other federal and state laws. Ordering a prison official to
comply with the United States Constitution serves no purpose.
Plaintiff's request is unnecessary and redundant.
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 for a preliminary injunction and a
temporary restraining order (ECF No. 2) 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