Blackmon v. Tupelo-Lee County Jail

• Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
• Decided: October 26, 2020
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00196
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION GERALD WAYNE BLACKMON PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-00196-GHD-DAS TUPELO-LEE COUNTY JAIL DEFENDANT ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief which he has styled as a “petition to receive relief from harrasment [sic}.” Doc. # 18. A party seeking injunctive relief must prove four elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs any harm that the injunction will cause the non-movant; and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest. Women’s Med. Ctr. Of Nw. Houston v. Bell, 248 ¥.3d 411, 419 n, 15 (Sth Cir. 2001); DSC Communications Corp, y. DGI Technologies, Inc., 81 F.3d 597, 600 (Sth Cir. 1996). An injunction is an extraordinary remedy that is “not to be granted routinely, but only when the movant, by a clear showing, carries [the] burden of persuasion.” Black Fire Fighters Ass'n y. City of Dallas, 905 F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted); see also Lewis v. S.S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1121 (Sth Cir. 1976) (“injunction is an extraordinary remedy and should not issue except upon a clear showing of possible irreparable injury”).

In the instant motion, Plaintiff argues he believes that, since the filing of his complaint, county jail administrators are using a “biasfed]” and “threat[ening]” tone when interacting with him. Doc. # 18 at 2. By way of relief, Plaintiff asks the Court for an injunction to “help [him] move forward [with his lawsuit]... without prejudice.” /d, at 3. Plaintiff, however, fails to

identify any particular actions, verbal! or physical, taken by Defendants which are threatening. Aside from these conclusory allegations, Plaintiff merely regurgitates his dissatisfaction with the conditions of his confinement, which he has already described in his complaint. Upon due consideration, the Court finds that a denial of injunctive relief will not cause Plaintiff irreparable injury. Rather, the Court finds that the ordinary judicial process is sufficient to remedy any injuries Plaintiff has suffered or might suffer as a result of Defendant’s alleged actions. Moreover, the Court notes that the Spears hearing in the matter has not yet been held and, consequently, Plaintiff cannot show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion [1 8] for injunctive relief is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED, this the V6. of October,V2020. / XY I K A ) ay UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

The Court notes that mere verbal abuse and harassment by a prison official does not amount to a constitutional violation. See Bender v. Brumley, | F.3d 271, 274 n.4 (Sth Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).