United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
S. Carmody United States Magistrate Judge
Joseph Gregory Dunbar filed this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 against Defendants Physician's
Assistant Unknown Huyge, Health Unit Manager, Jody Labarre,
Psychiatrist Hanna Saad, Psychologist J. Guastella,
Psychiatrist Esmaeil Emam, Psychologist Dana Butler,
Psychologist Margaret Greiner, and Nurse Unknown Lake.
has filed a request for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3) and a motion for transfer
to a federal facility (ECF No. 8), alleging that unnamed MDOC
employees injected him with Hepatitis C in 2006 and that he
has not been treated for this condition. Plaintiff previously
filed a lawsuit regarding the issue of contamination, which
he claims was decided in his favor. Plaintiff is incorrect.
The case previously filed by Plaintiff is Dunbar v.
Prelesnik et al., No. 1:13-cv-1100 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 30,
2018), and summary judgment was granted to Defendants in that
case on March 30, 2018. Plaintiff has filed an appeal, which
is currently pending before the Sixth Circuit. Id.
at ECF Nos. 110-112.
also alleges that he is not allowed mail, phone calls, or
visits from the public and that prison employees have gotten
other inmates to assault him. Plaintiff asserts that he was
assaulted by gang members in 2002, and that his nose was
broken by inmates in 2017. Plaintiff also states that he is
being threatened with injectable psychotropic medication if
he refuses to take his oral medication solely because he has
refused chemotherapy and was seen doing pushups and working
out. Plaintiff seeks to be transferred to federal prison for
medical treatment, protection, and better treatment.
injunctions are “one of the most drastic tools in the
arsenal of judicial remedies.” Bonnell v.
Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800, 808 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting
Hanson Trust PLC v. ML SCM Acquisition Inc., 781
F.2d 264, 273 (2d Cir. 1986)). The issuance of preliminary
injunctive relief is committed to the discretion of the
district court. See Ne. Ohio Coal. v. Blackwell, 467
F.3d 999, 1009 (6th Cir. 2006); Nader v. Blackwell,
230 F.3d 833, 834 (6th Cir. 2000). In exercising that
discretion, a court must consider whether plaintiff has
established the following elements: (1) a strong or
substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the
likelihood of irreparable injury if the preliminary
injunction does not issue; (3) the absence of harm to other
parties; and (4) the protection of the public interest by
issuance of the injunction. Id. 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. Frisch's Rest., Inc. v.
Shoney's, Inc., 759 F.2d 1261, 1263 (6th Cir. 1985);
see also Ne. Ohio Coal., 467 F.3d at 1009. 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 Glover v. Johnson, 855 F.2d 277, 284
(6th Cir. 1988); Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432,
438 n.3 (6th Cir. 1984). The party seeking injunctive relief
bears a heavy burden of establishing that the extraordinary
and drastic remedy sought is appropriate under the
circumstances. See Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban
Cnty. Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002);
Stenberg v. Cheker Oil Co., 573 F.2d 921, 925 (6th
undersigned notes that Plaintiff has been transferred to the
Lakeland Correctional Facility since he filed his complaint
in this case. In addition, Plaintiff fails to specifically
mention any of the named Defendants in his motion. A party
seeking a preliminary injunction must show a relationship
between the irreparable injury claimed in the motion and the
claims pending in his complaint. See Colvin v.
Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 299-300 (6th Cir. 2010). A motion
for preliminary injunction is not the means by which a
plaintiff already in court on one claim can seek redress for
all other conditions of confinement that he finds actionable,
especially when the only remaining defendant has no power to
change the conditions of plaintiff's confinement at his
present institution. Simply put, a plaintiff is not entitled
to a preliminary injunction on claims not pending in the
complaint. See Ball v. Famiglio, 396 Fed.Appx. 836,
837 (3d Cir. 2010).
under controlling Sixth Circuit authority, Plaintiff'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. Mansfield, 866 F.2d
162, 167 (6th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff has not made such a
showing. It is not at all clear from Plaintiff's pro
se complaint or subsequent filings that Plaintiff has a
substantial likelihood of success on his Eighth Amendment
claim or Due Process claims.
Court further notes that Plaintiff has failed to show the
presence of irreparable harm. A plaintiff's harm from the
denial of a preliminary injunction is irreparable only if it
is not fully compensable by monetary damages. See
Overstreet, 305 F.3d at 578. Since filing this motion,
the case has proceeded without incident. There is no evidence
that the named Defendants have engaged in any of the
activities from which Plaintiff seeks to restrain them.
Plaintiff has not set forth specific facts showing an
immediate, concrete and irreparable harm in the absence of an
the interests of identifiable third parties and the public at
large weigh against an injunction. Decisions concerning
prison security are vested in prison officials, in the
absence of a constitutional violation. Any interference by
the federal courts in the administration of state prisons 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, 855 F.2d at
286-87. That showing has not been made here. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary relief will be denied.
to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the
Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of
service of this notice. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Failure to file timely objections within the specified time
waives the right to appeal the District Court's order.