Davis v. Peters

• Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana
• Decided: September 26, 2019
• Docket: 3:17-cv-00795
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TRAVIS SENTELL DAVIS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS EDMUND PETERS ET AL. NO: 17-00795-BAJ-EWD

RULING AND ORDER Before the Court is pro se Plaintiffs Motion for Spears Hearing/Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 14). Oral argument is not

required. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that he is the victim of “ongoing retahation” because he was

transferred from East Baton Rouge Parish Prison to Catahoula Correctional Center

soon after receiving a notice “informing [him] about a temporary restraining order/requesting a spears (sic) hearing.” (Doc. 14 at p. 1). Plaintiff further alleges he

was put in a cell with an iron door and no windows, and that all of his privileges were

restricted. (Id. at p. 2). Plaintiff avers that he was transferred to solitary confinement

on or about July 26, 2018, and was eventually released and transferred back to the

East Baton Rouge Parish Prison on June 28, 2019. Ud. at p. 1, 2). Plaintiff requests

a Spears hearing! and a Temporary Restraining Order. (Id. at p. 2).

1 In Spears v. McCotter, 766 ¥.2d 179 (6th Cir, 1985), the United States Court of Appeais for the Fifth Circuit provided district courts broad discretion to determine, in a pre-suit hearing if inmates may be

Il. LEGAL STANDARDS It “would be inequitable” to hold pro se litigants to strict procedural standards

and thereby punish such litigants “for lacking the linguistic and analytical skills of a

trained lawyer.” Perez, 312 F.3d at 194. Nonetheless, courts “still require pro se

parties to fundamentally ‘abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.” B.E.0.C.

v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir.2014) (crting Frazier v. Wells Fargo Bank,

N.A., 541 Fed.Appx. 419, 421 (5th Cir.2013)). Thus, courts have held, for example,

that “[plro se litigants must properly plead sufficient facts that, when liberally

construed, state a plausible claim to relief, ... and brief arguments on appeal.” In re

Emergency Room Mobile Serus., L.E.C., 529 B.R. 676, 683 (N.D. Tex. 2015).

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy; it is never

awarded as of right.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (internal citations

and quotations omitted), At all times, the burden of persuasion remains with

Plaintiff as to each of the four elements. Specifically, a Plaintiff must establish: (1) a

substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of

irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs

any harm that will result to the non-movant if the injunction is eranted; and (4) the

injunction will not disserve the public interest. See Ridgely v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt.

Agency, 512 F.3d 727, 734 (6th Cir. 9008). See also Allied Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. CDL

Mktg., Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 809 (5th Cir. 1989) (preliminary injunctive relief “is an

extraordinary remedy and should be granted only if the movant has clearly carried

the burden of persuasion with respect to all four factors”); Mississippt Power & Light

Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985) (“{t]he decision. to

grant a request for preliminary injunction is to be treated as the exception rather

than the rule”). The decision whether to grant or deny a request for a preliminary

injunction 1s within the sound discretion of the Court. See Allied Mittg. Grp., Inc.,

878 F.2d at 809. If a plaintiff fails to meet his burden regarding any of the necessary elements,

the Court need not address the other elements necessary for eranting a preliminary

injunction. See Roho, Inc. v. Marquis, 902 F.2d 356, 261 (Sth Cir. 1990) (declining to

address the remaining elements necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction after

finding that the plaintiff failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the

merits). DISCUSSION Plaintiff has not satisfied the pasic elements required for the imposition of

immediate injunctive relief as set forth by Ridgley because he fails to plead any facts

that can reasonably be interpreted as having met any of the Ridgley criteria. Plaintiff

merely argues that his rights have been violated, and that he should be granted a

Spears hearing and an injunction, without any further discussion. Plaintiff fails to

allege that that there are any current ongoing violations of his rights, nor does he

allege that he suffered from any injuries or other conditions related to the time

allegedly spent in solitary confinement. The Court is required to review a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally, so as to

glean a cause of action from often inartfully pleaded complaints. The Court has

complied with this mandate. The Court cannot, however, be expected to “extract

blood from a stone” when a pro se litigant does not allege even the bare minimum

facts to support a cause of action. Because Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that can

be reasonably interpreted to address any of the requisite criteria for the issuance of

a temporary restraining order, the Court cannot reach the full merits of Plaintiff's

request. Because Plaintiff has not met the basic pleading requirements to be granted

injunctive relief, the Court finds no need to order that a Spears hearing be conducted

to determine if Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief is frivolous. Plaintiffs motion

is DENIED. Iv. CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Spears Hearing/Temporary

Restraining Order (Doc. 14) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this of September, 2019. Ba. fet UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA