Long v. John Doe

S.D. Mississippi

Long v. John Doe

DecidedApril 17, 2024

Docket5:22-cv-00047

StatusUnknown

This text of Long v. John Doe (Long v. John Doe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Long v. John Doe, (S.D. Miss. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES L. LONG PLAINTIFF

VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-47-DCB-ASH

JOHN DOE, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLANTIFF’S MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER [48]

BEFORE the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s Motion [48] entitled “Motion for Restraining Order on M.D.O.C./E.M.C.F./W.C.C.F.” Having fully considered the Motion [48] and applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion [48] should be denied. Plaintiff, an inmate of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and currently incarcerated at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility in Meridian, Mississippi, brings this conditions of confinement Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous prison officials. In Plaintiff’s Motion [48], he requests a transfer. Plaintiff’s Motion [48] for a restraining order requests relief that extends beyond fourteen days and as such, “has the same practical effect as a preliminary injunction and may be treated as a preliminary injunction.” See Jones v. Belhaven College, 98 F.3d App’x 283, 284 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 86–88 (1974)). In order to receive a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must demonstrate four familiar requirements: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable harm if the injunction does not issue; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted; and (4) that the grant of an injunction is in the public interest.

Denton v. City of El Paso, Texas, 861 F. App’x 836, 838 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Moore v. Brown, 868 F.3d 398, 402–03 (5th Cir. 2017)). A preliminary injunction “should not be granted unless the party seeking it has clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four requirements.” Planned Parenthood Ass’n of Hidalgo Cnty. Tex., Inc. v. Suehs, 692 F.3d 343, 348 (Sth Cir. 2012) (quotation and citation omitted). Furthermore, the granting or denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (Sth Cir. 1991) (citing Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386 (Sth Cir. 1984)). The primary justification for applying this remedy is to preserve the Court’s ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits. Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 573 (Sth Cir. 1974). Plaintiff does not assert specific allegations to support his Motion [48]. His claims are conclusory. “Mere speculation or conclusory allegations of an irreparable injury is insufficient.” Bias v. TDCJ-CID, No. 6:21CV291, 2023 WL 2254626, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2023) (citing Daniels Health Scis., L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Scis., L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579, 585 (Sth Cir. 2013); Lakedreams, 932 F.2d at 1107 (irreparable harm allegations based on conclusory allegations does not entitle a movant to injunctive relief); Coleman v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 3:12-CV-4783-M-BH, 2013 WL 1187158, at *8 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2013) (“These unsupported, conclusory statements are insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a TRO and preliminary injunction.”); Mitchell v. Sizemore, No. 6:09CV348, 2010 WL 457145, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2010) (“His vague and conclusory allegation that he is undergoing ‘a number of problems’ is insufficient to show entitlement to injunctive relief.”)), report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:21CV291, 2023 WL 2245122, at *] (E.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2023). The Court has evaluated Plaintiff's request in accordance with the applicable case law and finds that Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of persuasion as to the required factors for

such relief. See Ridgely v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 512 F.3d 727, 734-35 (Sth Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs conclusory allegations do not establish that he is entitled to the extraordinary relief of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Therefore, Plaintiffs Motion [48] will be denied without a hearing. Accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Restraining Order [48] is denied. SO ORDERED, this the _17"_ day of April, 2024.

s/David Bramlette UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES L. LONG PLAINTIFF

VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-47-DCB-ASH

JOHN DOE, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING PLANTIFF’S MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER [48]

BEFORE the Court is pro se Plaintiff’s Motion [48] entitled “Motion for Restraining Order on M.D.O.C./E.M.C.F./W.C.C.F.” Having fully considered the Motion [48] and applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion [48] should be denied. Plaintiff, an inmate of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and currently incarcerated at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility in Meridian, Mississippi, brings this conditions of confinement Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous prison officials. In Plaintiff’s Motion [48], he requests a transfer. Plaintiff’s Motion [48] for a restraining order requests relief that extends beyond fourteen days and as such, “has the same practical effect as a preliminary injunction and may be treated as a preliminary injunction.” See Jones v. Belhaven College, 98 F.3d App’x 283, 284 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 86–88 (1974)). In order to receive a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must demonstrate four familiar requirements: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable harm if the injunction does not issue; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted; and (4) that the grant of an injunction is in the public interest.

Denton v. City of El Paso, Texas, 861 F. App’x 836, 838 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Moore v. Brown, 868 F.3d 398, 402–03 (5th Cir. 2017)). A preliminary injunction “should not be granted unless the party seeking it has clearly carried the burden of persuasion on all four requirements.” Planned Parenthood Ass’n of Hidalgo Cnty. Tex., Inc. v. Suehs, 692 F.3d 343, 348 (Sth Cir. 2012) (quotation and citation omitted). Furthermore, the granting or denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (Sth Cir. 1991) (citing Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386 (Sth Cir. 1984)). The primary justification for applying this remedy is to preserve the Court’s ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits. Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 573 (Sth Cir. 1974). Plaintiff does not assert specific allegations to support his Motion [48]. His claims are conclusory. “Mere speculation or conclusory allegations of an irreparable injury is insufficient.” Bias v. TDCJ-CID, No. 6:21CV291, 2023 WL 2254626, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2023) (citing Daniels Health Scis., L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Scis., L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579, 585 (Sth Cir. 2013); Lakedreams, 932 F.2d at 1107 (irreparable harm allegations based on conclusory allegations does not entitle a movant to injunctive relief); Coleman v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 3:12-CV-4783-M-BH, 2013 WL 1187158, at *8 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2013) (“These unsupported, conclusory statements are insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a TRO and preliminary injunction.”); Mitchell v. Sizemore, No. 6:09CV348, 2010 WL 457145, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2010) (“His vague and conclusory allegation that he is undergoing ‘a number of problems’ is insufficient to show entitlement to injunctive relief.”)), report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:21CV291, 2023 WL 2245122, at *] (E.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2023). The Court has evaluated Plaintiff's request in accordance with the applicable case law and finds that Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of persuasion as to the required factors for

such relief. See Ridgely v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 512 F.3d 727, 734-35 (Sth Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs conclusory allegations do not establish that he is entitled to the extraordinary relief of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Therefore, Plaintiffs Motion [48] will be denied without a hearing. Accordingly, it is hereby, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Restraining Order [48] is denied. SO ORDERED, this the _17"_ day of April, 2024.

s/David Bramlette UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Canal Authority of the State of Florida v. Howard H. Callaway, Secretary of the United States Army, the Cross-Florida Canal Association v. Howard H. Callaway, Secretary of the United States Army, Eleanor H. Miller v. Avery S. Fullerton, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, J. G. Perko v. The Canal Authority of the State of Florida, Etc.

489 F.2d 567 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)

Lakedreams, a Texas Partnership v. Steve Taylor, D/B/A California T's

932 F.2d 1103 (Fifth Circuit, 1991)

Daniels Health Sciences, L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Sciences, L.L.C.

710 F.3d 579 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)

Ridgely v. Federal Emergency Management Agency

512 F.3d 727 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)

Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Hidalgo County Texas, Inc. v. Suehs

692 F.3d 343 (Fifth Circuit, 2012)

Ricky Moore v. City of Dallas, Texas