Opinion
C/A No. 0:19-1953-CMC-PJG
01-14-2020
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., Plaintiff, v. NP Amy Enloe; Nurse Lindsey Harris; Nurse Katherine W. Burgess; Unknown SCDC Medical Administrator at SCDC Headquarters; LLD B. Jacobs, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The plaintiff, Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., a self-represented state prisoner, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Garrett files this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for a Report and Recommendation on Garrett's motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 7.) The defendants filed a response in opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 32.) As described below, the court concludes the motion should be denied because it is moot.
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); 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), reissued in part by 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010), overruling Blackwelder Furniture Co. of Statesville v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1977). 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).
The portions of Real Truth that were reissued by the Fourth Circuit are Parts I and II found at 575 F.3d at 345-47, which are the sections addressing injunctions that are relied upon in the court's Report and Recommendation.
Based on Winter, the Real Truth Court expressly rejected and overruled Blackwelder's sliding scale approach, which allowed a plaintiff to obtain an injunction with a strong showing of a probability of success even if he demonstrated only a possibility of irreparable harm. Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 347; Winter, 555 U.S. at 21-23.
At the time he filed this case, Garrett was an inmate at the Perry Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC"). Garrett is now housed at the Turbeville Correctional Institution of SCDC. (ECF No. 27.) In his motion for a preliminary injunction, Garrett claims Perry Correctional medical staff and Defendants Amy Enloe, Lindsey Harris, and Katherine W. Burgess are denying him access to prescription shades for his eyes and medicine prescribed to address inflammation in his eyes. (Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 7 at 2.) Garrett claims that without the prescribed shades and medicine, he will continue to suffer from migraines and headaches, and he will suffer further damage to his eyes. (Id.) Additionally, Garrett claims Perry Correctional's librarian, Defendant B. Jacobs, refuses to provide him copies of his legal filings to accommodate his hand injury, which will result in Garrett missing court deadlines in his multiple civil rights lawsuits against SCDC prison officials and staff. (Garrett Aff. ¶ 12, ECF No. 7-2 at 2-3.)
The defendants argue Garrett's motion is moot because he is no longer housed at Perry Correctional. The court agrees. "The doctrine of mootness constitutes a part of the constitutional limits of federal court jurisdiction." Porter v. Clarke, 852 F.3d 358, 363 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Simmons v. United Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 763 (4th Cir. 2011)). "[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the out-come." Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). Here, Garrett asks the court to order Perry Correctional Staff to provide him with prescription shades and medicine and copies of his legal documents, but Garrett is now housed in a different prison. Because the defendants in this case cannot provide Garrett the injunctive relief he seeks, Garrett's motion for a preliminary injunction is moot. See Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991) (finding a prisoner's transfer to a different facility mooted his claim for injunctive and declaratory relief and collecting similar cases).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the court recommends Garrett's motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. (ECF No. 7.) January 14, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina
/s/_________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The parties' attention 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
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
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).