Madison v. Dotson

• Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia
• Decided: August 4, 2025
• Docket: 7:24-cv-00749
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

MER "AT ROANOKE, VA ww

August 04, 2025 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT aura austin, cLERK FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA®™®: og Beoson ROANOKE DIVISION DEPUTY CLERK

OTIS T. MADISON, ) Plaintiff, Case No. 7:24CV00749

v. OPINION AND ORDER CHADWICK DOTSON, ET AL., JUDGE JAMES P. JONES Defendants. Otis Madison, Pro Se Plaintiff. The plaintiff, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Madison alleges that while he was confined at Red Onion State Prison (Red Onion), a facility operated by the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC), prison officials used excessive force against him. In a prior Opinion and Order, I denied Madison’s separate motion seeking interlocutory injunctive relief, finding no grounds showing imminent danger of irreparable harm. Madison yv. Dotson, No. 7:24CV00749, 2024 WL 5252495 (W.D. Va. Dec. 31, 2024). Thereafter, Madison filed a motion apparently based on the same factual allegations and asking for a transfer out of the western region of the VDOC. This submission was docketed as a renewed motion seeking interlocutory relief. After careful review of the record, I conclude that the motion must be denied as without merit.

A party seeking interlocutory injunctive relief must state facts clearly showing “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm

in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Each of these four factors must be satisfied before the court

can grant this extraordinary type of relief. Id. For reasons stated in my previous Opinion and Order, Madison has not made the required showings to support his demand for the extraordinary relief he seeks. Moreover, in the current submission, Madison seeks transfer to a different

prison. He has no protected right to such relief. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983) (finding no liberty interest in avoiding interstate prison transfer). For the reasons stated, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion seeking

interlocutory injunctive relief, ECF No. 13, is DENIED. ENTER: August 4, 2025 /s/ JAMES P. JONES Senior United States District Judge