Opinion
Case No. 7:18-cv-1558-RMG-MGB
07-18-2018
Willie Joe Sturkey, Plaintiff, v. Alan Wilson, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Willie Joe Sturkey has filed a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against thirteen defendants, including various officials at the detention center and several prosecutors in his pending state prosecution. Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at the Union County Jail located in Union, in South Carolina. He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), pretrial matters have been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff filed a document labeled as "Order Injunctive Relief" (DE#11, filed 7/02/2018), which the Court construes as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. After careful review, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion be denied for the following reasons:
I. Liberal Construction
Pro se pleadings are given liberal construction and are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, "[t]he 'special judicial solicitude' with which a district court should view ... pro se filings does not transform the court into an advocate. United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789, 797 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 2401 (2013). Only those questions which are squarely presented to a court may properly be addressed." Weller v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., City of Baltimore., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990). Giving "liberal construction" does not mean that the Court can ignore a prisoner's clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim. "Principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints ... [do] not require ... courts to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them." Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1088 (1986).
II. Discussion
In this § 1983 action, the pro se Plaintiff has filed a two-page hand-written document labeled as "Order Injunctive Relief." (DE# 11). Plaintiff cites no relevant case law to supports his request for a preliminary injunction and makes conclusory allegations of "deprivation of [his] due process and equal protection rights." (Id.). Although Plaintiff is represented by counsel in the pending state criminal case, he complains that he cannot prepare an adequate defense and that the state court has not ruled on his pro se motions or set various hearings. Plaintiff presents a litany of complaints about the state court and several prosecutors, including procedural matters (i.e. hearing dates, discovery, and speedy trial matters) that are not properly cognizable in this § 1983 action. Plaintiff also complains about the detention center because his legal mail was returned for insufficient postage and because he believes the defendants "conspired" against him
In his own words, Plaintiff alleges that: 1) he has been denied legal books; 2) "the courts failing to respond to objections and pleadings submitted by the Plaintiff;" 3) "Defendant Megan and the Solicitor fail to assign motion hearing, bonds hearing, preliminary hearing and bonds reductions hearing;" 4) "Defendant discontinue holding my property such as car, tax refund on Now debit card, $1,864 US dollars, employee debit card (Hire Dynamics), and clothes;" 5) "Defendant denying fast and speed trail (sic), jury trail (sic) and counsel in magistrat (sic) court, judge demonstrating prejudice and bias towards the plaintiff;" 6) "Plaintiff can not prepare an effective defense, after agents of the State open discovery materials in his absents (sic) then remove the CDs then returned them back to the solicitor's office who has condone the unlawful tampering with discovery evidence;" 7) Defendant Sexton continues to tamper with legal mail going to the federal courts of the Plaintiff attempting to remove the supported Exhibits from the pleadings;" 8) "discontinue the defendants from holding me upon an invalid warrant;" 9) "discontinue denying me legal copies to support pleadings and research materials, attempting to discourage me from being Pro se;" and 10) Plaintiff can not prepare arguments in his criminal case when the defendants has (sic) conspired to impede adequate access to rules, statute, black law dictionary, hearings, responses to objections, computers, notary etc." (DE# 11).
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must make a "clear showing" that (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 21 (2008); see also, Smith v Ozmint, 444 F.Supp.2d 502, 504 (D.S.C. 2006). All four requirements must be satisfied in order for relief to be granted. Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1089 (2010). 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." Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 811 (4th Cir. 1991) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff must "clearly" demonstrate that they are "likely" to succeed on the merits. Real Truth About Obama, 575 F.3d at 346-47; Carcaño v. McCrory, 203 F.Supp.3d 615 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 26, 2016). A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Irreparable injury must be both imminent and likely; speculation about potential future injuries is insufficient. Id. at 22. Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that each factor supports his request. Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 812 (4th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff has presented a laundry list of allegations, but has failed to show that any of the four factors favor issuance of a preliminary injunction in his favor. He has failed to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits or likely to suffer any harm, much less irreparable harm, in the absence of the requested preliminary relief. Although Plaintiff complains about the state court, the state proceedings, and the state prosecutors, his allegations are generalized and reflect Plaintiff's own misunderstanding of the law, including procedures regarding discovery, hearings, bonds, and the respective roles of counsel and the solicitors. With respect to discovery and other procedural matters, Plaintiff is represented by counsel in his pending state criminal case and may present his arguments there. Plaintiff's allegations do not suggest any irreparable or imminent injury. Rather, Plaintiff is subject to the same state procedures for criminal prosecution that every criminal defendant faces. Absent extraordinary circumstances, this is not a proper matter for injunctive relief in federal court. Although Plaintiff alleges that his legal mail was tampered with at the detention center, Plaintiff has indicated in his repeated filings that his mail was returned because Plaintiff failed to put sufficient postage on it. Plaintiff's allegation that the Defendants "conspired" against him to deprive him of legal research is conclusory and unsupported. Plaintiff has failed to satisfy any of the four factors for a preliminary injunction.
Moreover, Plaintiff may not seek an injunction in federal court for the purpose of interfering with his state prosecution. The United States Supreme Court has recognized the "fundamental policy against federal interference with state criminal prosecutions." Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971); Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982); and see Robinson v. Thomas (Warden), 855 F.3d 278, 285 (4th Cir. April 27, 2017) (discussing Younger in the context of a habeas case). A federal court may disregard Younger's mandate to abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings only where "extraordinary circumstances" exist that present the possibility of irreparable harm. Kugler Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975) (addressing motion to enjoin state officials from proceeding with prosecution); Nivens v. Gilchrist (Nivens II), 444 F.3d 237, 241 (4th Cir. 2006) (finding that federal court intervention was inappropriate), cert. dism'd, 548 U.S. 939 (2006). No exceptional and compelling circumstances are present here that would favor the Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief.
III. Recommendation
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Plaintiff's "Motion for Preliminary Injunction" (DE#11) should be denied.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
/s/_________
MARY GORDON BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE July 18, 2018
Charleston, South Carolina
Plaintiff's attention is directed to the Important Warning 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
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
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).