Opinion
C/A 9:21-3820-RMG-MHC
10-27-2022
Sterling L. Singleton, Plaintiff, v. Bryan P. Stirling, Dennis Patterson, Willie Davis, Terry Wallace, Whittington, Willie Ocean, Michael Pressly, Edward Gadsden, Bostic, Brennen, Ms. Labradore, William Gill, Shanon Dean, Shawn Stover, Anthony Berry, Terry Marshal, Dr. Kinnard Debose, Tishiro Inabnit, and Sophia Paquette, Defendants.
Robin L. Blume United States District Court
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Molly H. Cherry United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff filed this action pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment “to be free from the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment when [Defendants] failed to protect him from another inmate.” ECF No. 31 at 8. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. ECF No. 60. The Motion is ripe for review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC, the undersigned is authorized to review petitions for injunctive relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Judge.
In his Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court “grant [a] preliminary and permanent injunction to: insure all defendants .... respect and protect[] all of plaintiff's . . .statutory, constitutional, international and human rights; while simultaneously; ordering defendants to ordermandate that plaintiff be given requested legal materials/supplies when needed/requested and also afford plaintiff copies of even hand generated/written motions-documents so that he . . .may in good-faith oblige and make all deadlines.” ECF No. 60 at 2-3.
DISCUSSION
The standard for a permanent injunction is “essentially the same” as for preliminary injunctive relief, with the exception that the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n.12 (1987). Accordingly, the undersigned addresses Plaintiff's Motion referring to the standard for a preliminary injunction.
A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy involving the exercise of a very far-reaching power, which is to be applied only in the limited circumstances which clearly demand it.” Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery Cty., 722 F.3d 184, 188 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 811 (4th Cir. 1991)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The decision whether to grant a preliminary injunction is committed to the equitable discretion of the district court. See Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700, 714 (2010); Christopher Phelps & Assocs., LLC v. Galloway, 492 F.3d 532, 543 (4th Cir. 2007).
As an initial matter, regarding Plaintiff's request for “legal materials” and “hand generated/written motions,” Plaintiff is not entitled to the injunctive relief he seeks because the wrong or wrongs that Plaintiff's requested injunctive relief would protect against fall outside the scope of the Second Amended Complaint, which concerns alleged cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. See ECF No. 31 at 8-9, Statement of Claim. A “party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Bessellieu v. Hollis, C/A No. 8:20-cv-03189-MGL-JDA, 2021 WL 1299565 (D.S.C. Feb. 22, 2021) (quoting Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)). “The purpose of interim equitable relief is to protect the movant, during the pendency of the action, from being harmed in the manner in which the movant contends it was or will be harmed through the illegality alleged in the complaint.” Martin v. Stokes, No. 8:17-3391-MGL-JDA, 2017 WL 6888826, at *2 (D.S.C. Dec. 20, 2017), report and recommendation adopted 2018 WL 368962 (Jan. 11, 2018). “Thus, a preliminary injunction may never issue to prevent an injury or harm which not even the moving party contends was caused by the wrong claimed in the underlying action.” Id.
Of note, notwithstanding Plaintiff's allegations that he has been denied pens and copies of motions to be able to adequately prosecute his case, ECF No. 60 at 1-2, he filed an appeal regarding this Court's Order on his motion for entry of default, ECF No. 65, as well as a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint, ECF No. 70, indicating an ability to adequately prosecute his case.
With regard to the request for Defendants to “respect and protect[] all of plaintiff's . . . statutory, constitutional, international and human rights,” Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 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). A plaintiff must make a clear showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Id. at 22. Similarly, he must make a clear showing that he is likely to be irreparably harmed absent injunctive relief. Id. at 20-23. Only then may the court consider whether the balance of equities tips in the plaintiff s favor. Finally, the court must pay particular regard to the public consequences of employing the extraordinary relief of injunction. Id. at 24.
Here, Plaintiff has not shown that he can satisfy the test articulated in Winter. First, while he has submitted a Declaration in support of his Motion, ECF No. 60-1, the majority of the statements pertain to legal materials and supplies. As addressed above, those statements fall outside the scope of the Second Amended Complaint.
The few statements in Plaintiffs' Declaration that pertain to the alleged harm he suffered while detained, as set forth in his Second Amended Complaint, are largely general and conclusory in nature: “I have been exposed to threats and inferences of harm-future harm.” ECF No. 60 at 1. He has not supported the factual allegations in his Motion with any evidentiary support, such as medical records or affidavits from medical professionals, nor has he otherwise made a clear showing that immediate or irreparable injury, loss or damage will result without the requested injunctive relief. Although Plaintiff claims he will suffer irreparable injury, he fails to submit any documentation in support of this position. Plaintiff's conclusory allegations are insufficient to warrant the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief. See Henley v. Byars, Civil Action No. 2:11-1487-JFA-BHH, 2011 WL 5024159, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 12, 2011) (noting that Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a showing of “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly shows that [Plaintiff will suffer] immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage” for a temporary restraining order to issue), report and recommendation adopted by 2011 WL 5024153 (D.S.C. Oct. 20, 2011).
As such, based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief, and his Motion should be denied.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (ECF No. 60) be DENIED.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.
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:
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).