Opinion
Civil Action 9:23-CV-75
07-10-2023
DAVID KING, JR. v. TEXAS DEP'T CRIM. JUST., ET AL.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ZACK HAWHORN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff David King, Jr., a prisoner confined at the Wainwright Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Brian Collier, Kourtney S. Lane, Gwendolyn J. Spurlock, and Darrell Phillips.
This action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief. This Report and Recommendation considers the merits of the motion.
Discussion
A party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction must establish the following elements: (1) there is a substantial likelihood the party will prevail on the merits; (2) a substantial threat exists that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendants; and (4) the granting of the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991). Relief should be granted only if the party seeking relief has clearly carried the burden of persuasion as to all four elements. Black Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Dallas, 905 F.2d 63, 64 (5th Cir. 1990).
Plaintiff's complaint concerns allegations that the defendants withheld a legal publication and holiday greeting cards from him, and that they failed to provide him with an inmate account statement. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring the defendants to provide him with a tablet and writing materials. Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to establish a substantial threat of irreparable harm to Plaintiff if injunctive relief is not granted. There is no indication that Defendants' actions have interfered with Plaintiff's access to the courts. To the contrary, Plaintiff has been able to file multiple documents in this action. As a result, his motion for injunctive relief should be denied.
Recommendation
Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief should be denied.
Objections
Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.