Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Roden v. Floyd

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

October 31, 2019

JOHNATHON RODEN #319782 aka Johnathan Roden Plaintiff,
v.
MICHELLE FLOYD, RICHARD CADY, and BEVERLY HAYNES-LOVE, Defendants.

          ANTHONY P. PATTI MAG. JUDGE

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [ECF NO. 96]

          Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Johnathon Roden (“Roden”) brings this action for a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, requesting the Court to enjoin the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) and its employees or agents and order that they reinstate his visitation privileges.

         Roden's overarching lawsuit concerns a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but the facts underlying this motion are substantially different.

         A brief outline of the facts is sufficient. MDOC Director Heidi Washington (“Washington”) placed a visitor restriction on Roden on October 18, 2018. The visitor restriction meant that for a minimum of one year Roden was only permitted visits from qualified clergy, his attorney, and certain government employees or representatives on official business. Then Roden would be eligible to appeal the restriction through MDOC procedures.

         Roden says that Washington restricted his visitation privileges to force him to settle his § 1983 claim against MDOC employees. Defendants say that Washington merely implemented a policy that restricts visitation privileges for any prisoner who is twice found guilty of violating MDOC regulations on substance abuse. Roden does not dispute that he has two misconduct violations relating to substance use.

         It is unclear who exactly Roden seeks to enjoin. The overarching § 1983 claim is against Michelle Floyd, Richard Cady, and Shawn Brewer (“Defendants”). However, Roden moves the Court to enjoin “MDOC Defendants, Agents, Director, Employees and all other persons acting in concer[t] and participation with them, ” specifically Washington.

         Although Washington is not a named party, the state responded on her behalf.

         For the purposes of analysis, the Court construes Roden's motion as a request to enjoin Washington, who is not a party to the lawsuit. The Court DENIES Roden's request for injunctive relief.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Roden asks the Court to issue both a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. A temporary restraining order is “a procedural remedy implemented on an ex parte basis when notice to the opposite party is impractical or would generate additional harm to the applicant.” Anglers of the Au Sable v. U.S. Forest Serv., 402 F.Supp.2d 826, 830 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b); Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439, (1974)). Roden does not allege any reason why notice is impractical or dangerous, and Defendants responded to the motion. Therefore, the Court treats this motion as a request for preliminary injunction.

         When deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the district court considers the following four factors:

(1) whether the movant has a “strong” likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would otherwise suffer irreparable injury; (3) whether issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000). The Court balances these factors against each other; they are not prerequisites for an injunction and no single factor is dispositive. Id.

         The Court holds pro se litigants to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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