United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ANTHONY P. PATTI MAG. JUDGE
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [ECF NO.
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge
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.
overarching lawsuit concerns a civil rights complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, but the facts underlying this motion
are substantially different.
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.
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.
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.
Washington is not a named party, the state responded on her
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.
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.
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.
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).