Steve Jenkins v. Warden M.V. Joseph

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-12574
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Steve Jenkins, ) C/A No.: 1:25-12574-JFA-SVH ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) REPORT AND Warden M.V. Joseph, ) RECOMMENDATION ) Respondent. ) )

Steve Jenkins (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) or preliminary injunction. [ECF No. 9]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), this matter has been referred to the undersigned for pretrial proceedings. For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends Petitioner’s motion be denied. I. Factual and Procedural Background Petitioner’s underlying petition, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, concerns a disciplinary sanction he alleges he received in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. [ECF No. 1]. He filed this motion for a TRO or preliminary injunction regarding allegations his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (“ADA”), and the Eighth Amendment are being violated. He seeks a TRO or preliminary injunction enjoining the “defendants”1 from discriminating against him based on disability. [ECF No. 9 at 1]. II. Discussion A. Standard of Review A party seeking a TRO must establish the following four elements: (1) she is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) she is likely to suffer irreparable harm

in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in her favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); , 575 F.3d 342, 346–47 (4th Cir. 2009),

overruling , 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1977).2 The party must make clear showings as to the first and second elements. , 555 U.S. at 19–22; , 575 F.3d at 345–47. The court may only consider whether the balance of equities tips in favor of the

1 The undersigned notes that there is one Respondent in this case, not multiple defendants, as is proper in a matter brought pursuant to § 2241. 2 Although the original decision in was vacated by the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of the decision in , 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the Fourth Circuit reissued its opinion on Parts I and II of its earlier opinion in the case. 575 F.3d at 345–47, stating the facts and articulating the standard for the issuance of preliminary injunctions, before remanding it to the district court for consideration in light of . , 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010). party seeking injunctive relief after she has satisfied the first two elements. , 575 F.3d at 346–47.3 Finally, the court must be particularly mindful of the public consequences of employing the extraordinary relief of injunction. , 575 F.3d at 347 (quoting , 555 U.S. at 19–23). B. Analysis 1. Not cognizable in a case brought pursuant to § 2241

Although Plaintiff argues he may bring this claim in a § 2241 action, he cites a case from the District of Connecticut in support. ECF No. 9-1 at 4. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not decided in a published opinion whether a prisoner may challenge his conditions of

confinement through a § 2241 petition. In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit observed a circuit split on this issue. , 795 F. App’x 157, 163 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have determined that conditions of

confinement claims must be brought in a civil rights action, while the First, Second, and D.C. Circuits recognize them in habeas petitions). The

3 The court in relied on in expressly rejecting and overruling sliding scale approach that formerly allowed a party to obtain an injunction with a strong showing of a probability of success even if she demonstrated only a possibility of irreparable harm. , 575 F.3d at 347; , 555 U.S. at 20–22. court noted the Fourth Circuit’s unpublished decisions have held that conditions-of-confinement claims are not cognizable in habeas proceedings. (citing Rodriguez v. Ratledge, 715 F. Appx 261, 266 (4th Cir. 2017)). Therefore, the undersigned recommends Petitioner’s motion be dismissed because the claims are not cognizable under § 2241. 2. Petitioner has not met the standard for a TRO Plaintiff has not established—or even presented argument on—each of the four elements required for a TRO. Petitioner’s motion should be denied on this basis. Further, even if his claims are brought in a civil rights action, it

appears a TRO in this case would be an impermissible way for Petitioner to avoid exhausting his administrative remedies. Therefore, the undersigned recommends Petitioner’s motion for a TRO or preliminary injunction be denied. III. Conclusion and Recommendation For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends Plaintiffs motion for a TRO or preliminary injunction be denied. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. □□ t fete? October 15, 2025 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

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.’” , 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); 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 901 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

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); , 474 U.S. 140 (1985); , 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); , 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).