Opinion
C. A. 6:24-cv-02136-HMH-KFM
05-20-2024
Joshua Lynn Robinson, Plaintiff, v. David Seay, Brian Johnson, Anthony Basile, Will Davis, Caroline Newton, Lynn Barrett, Nela Laughridge, Defendants.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KEVIN F. MCDONALD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) (doc. 12). The plaintiff, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
Of note, the plaintiff put two case numbers on his motion (see doc. 12). The plaintiff is warned that he may not submit one filing for two cases; as such, any future filings containing multiple case numbers will only be filed in the first case number listed.
The plaintiff's complaint was entered on the docket on April 19, 2024 (doc. 1). By order filed May 10, 2024, the plaintiff was given a specific time frame in which to bring his case into proper form for judicial screening (doc. 8). The plaintiff has not submitted the necessary documents to bring his case into proper form; however, on May 20, 2024, he filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a TRO (doc. 12). As addressed below, the undersigned recommends it be denied.
In his motion, which does not relate to the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint in this case, the plaintiff alleges that he has been denied adequate medical treatment (including physical therapy) during his time at the Greenville County Detention Center (“the Detention Center”) (doc. 12). He contends that he injured his hand when he was bitten by a K-9 during his arrest in March 2024, and that although he was treated at Prisma Hospital, he has not been provided appropriate follow-up care at the Detention Center for his hand, including physical therapy (id. at 1-2). Due to the improper medical treatment, the plaintiff's hand range of motion is limited and the delayed treatment may prevent him from regaining full use of his hand (id. at 2). For relief, the plaintiff requests that the defendants be required to arrange for the plaintiff to be examined and provided a plan of treatment by a qualified medical specialist and that the defendants be forced to follow that plan of treatment (id.).
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction or a TRO must establish all four of the following elements: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 346-47 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds by 559 U.S. 1089 (2010), reinstated in relevant part on remand by 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010). A plaintiff must make a clear showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22; Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 345-46. Similarly, he must make a clear showing that he is likely to be irreparably harmed absent injunctive relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20-23; Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 347. Only then may the court consider whether the balance of equities tips in the plaintiff's favor. See Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 346-47. Finally, the court must pay particular regard to the public consequences of employing the extraordinary relief of injunction. Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 347 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 24).
Here, although the plaintiff purports to seek relief from the defendants, the allegations in his motion involve events at the Detention Center involving Detention Center employees - none of which are parties to this action (see doc. 12). Generally, a court “may not enter an injunction against a person who has not been made a party to the case before it.” Pew v. Wetzel, C/A No. 3:12-cv-1984, 2015 WL 10474859, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2015), Report and Recommendation adopted by 2016 WL 948878 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see Wilson v. Givens, C/A No. 9:21-cv-00523-RMG, 2021 WL 2935241, at *2 (D.S.C. July 13, 2021) (“Plaintiff impermissibly seeks relief against individuals who are not parties to this action.”); Abdullah-Malik v. Bryant, C/A No. 1:14-cv-109-RBH, 2015 WL 225740, at *3 (D.S.C. Jan. 16, 2015) (“[T]o the extent [Plaintiff] seeks to enjoin persons who are not parties to this lawsuit, Plaintiff's motion is improper.”).
In addition to the foregoing, the motion should still be denied even if it involved the defendants in this action because the plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. For example, the plaintiff's motion seeks different medical treatment than he has been provided - to which he is not necessarily constitutionally entitled. See Sharpe v. S.C. Dep't of Corrs., 621 Fed.Appx. 732, 733 (4th Cir. 2015) (unpublished per curiam opinion) (noting that “mere disagreement between an inmate and medical staff regarding the proper course of treatment provides no basis for relief” under § 1983 (citing Russell v. Sheffer, 528 F.2d 318, 319 (4th Cir. 1975))). Moreover, to the extent the plaintiff's complaint seeks his release from pretrial detention, the court should abstain under Younger from interfering in the plaintiff's pending criminal charges. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). Additionally, defendants Mr. Seay, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Davis, Ms. Newton, and Ms. Barrett - various attorneys in the plaintiff's family court and criminal court proceedings - are not state actors against whom relief can be sought pursuant to § 1983. See Goodyear v. Hornung, C/A No. 2:07-cv-276-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1362735, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 7, 2007) (dismissing § 1983 claim because “[p]laintiff's privately retained defense counsel and his paralegal are not state actors”); see also Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 323 n.13 (1981); Hall v. Quillen, 631 F.2d 1154, 1155-56 (4th Cir. 1980) (finding no state action under § 1983, even where the plaintiff's attorney was court-appointed). Ms. Laughridge, a guardian ad litem involved in the plaintiff's family court proceedings, is also entitled to immunity. Fleming v. Asbill, 42 F.3d 886, 889 (4th Cir. 1994); see Grant v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., C/A No. 2:18-cv-01804-RMG-BM, 2019 WL 2093861, at *5 (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2019) (finding that a guardian ad litem is not a state actor subject to suit under § 1983). The plaintiff's vague and conclusory allegations against Mr. Basile of falsifying documents fail to state a claim for relief. Griffith v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., C/A No. 2:12-cv-00239-DCN, 2012 WL 2048200, at *1 (D.S.C. June 6, 2012) (finding that the plausibility standard requires more than “‘an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.'” (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). As such, the plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits; thus, the undersigned recommends denying the plaintiff's motion.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order (doc. 12) should be denied.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The attention of the parties is directed to the important notice on the next page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court 250 East North Street, Room 2300 Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).