Opinion
C. A. 6:24-cv-00075-BHH-KFM
02-26-2024
Tyrone Perry, Plaintiff, v. Warden Terri Wallace, Kuturch Gause, Ester Labrador, Andrew Hedgepath, Bonnie Degraffenreid, LeiAnn Boards, Heather Martin, Vanessa Harris, Nichole Johnson, 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 temporary restraining order (“TRO”) (doc. 20). The plaintiff, a state prisoner in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”), is located at Broad River Correctional Institution (“Broad River”). 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. The plaintiff's complaint was entered on the docket on January 5, 2024 (doc. 1). On February 26, 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion for a TRO (doc. 20). As addressed below, the undersigned recommends it be denied.
In his motion for a TRO, the plaintiff has repeated the allegations set forth in his complaint, indicating that has been denied access to medical care - both at Kirkland Correctional Institution (as asserted in his complaint) as well as Broad River (not asserted in his complaint, but where he is now incarcerated) (doc. 20). The plaintiff also alleges that his legal mail is being opened by the defendants to obtain an advantage in this litigation (id.). The plaintiff also alleges that he requires immediate transfer to another institution because his legal mail is being opened outside of his presence as well as because one of the defendants in this action, Ms. Degraffenreid, has now been transferred to Broad River and is denying him medical treatment at Broad River (id.).
A plaintiff seeking 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).
The plaintiff's request for a TRO fails because he has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. For example, although one defendant named in the plaintiff's complaint (for actions that occurred at Kirkland) has been transferred to Broad River, Ms. Degraffenreid's transfer alone does not provide a basis for entry of a TRO. Further, the relief requested in the plaintiff's motion, transfer to a level 2 SCDC institution, seeks relief this court cannot grant because “federal courts do not sit to supervise state prisons.” See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 228-29 (1976) (noting that the decision to transfer inmates is reserved to the discretion of the state prisons). Indeed, in seeking a transfer to another institution based on discontinued medications, cancelled visits to a specialist, and alleged improper denial of “sick call” requests at both Kirkland and Broad River appear to involve the plaintiff's preference for different medical treatment than he has received - to which he is not constitutionally entitled. See Sharpe v. S.C. Dep't of Corrs., 621 Fed.Appx. 732, 733 (4th Cir. 2015) (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))). Further, although the plaintiff's motion for a TRO references the allegations in his complaint, his request for a transfer appears based on events that have occurred during his time at Broad River - which involves SCDC employees (other than Ms. Degraffenreid) and matters not currently before the court (see doc. 20). However, 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). As such, the undersigned recommends denying the plaintiff's motion.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (doc. 20) 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).