United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
D. Whitney Chief United States District Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on review of
Plaintiff's Motion for Notice of a Reprisal (Doc. No.
25), and Motion for Permanent Restraining Order, Preventive
Relief/Injunction, and Immediate “Safety”
Transfer. (Doc. No. 27), and Plaintiff's Motion for
Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 40).
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citing Munaf
v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008)). A preliminary
injunction is a remedy that is “granted only sparingly
and in limited circumstances.” MicroStrategy, Inc.
v. Motorola, Inc., 245 F.3d 335, 339 (4th
Cir. 2001) (quotations omitted). To obtain a preliminary
injunction, a movant must demonstrate: (1) that he is likely
to succeed on the merits; (2) that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3)
that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that
an injunction is in the public interest. DiBiase v. SPX
Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 230 (4th Cir. 2017)
(quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).
typical preliminary injunction is prohibitory and generally
seeks only to maintain the status quo pending a trial on the
merits. See Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 319
(4th Cir. 2013). By contrast, a mandatory
injunction “goes well beyond simply maintaining the
status quo pendent lite, is particularly disfavored,
and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly
favor the moving party.” Taylor v. Freeman, 34
F.3d 266, 270 n. 2 (4th Cir. 1994) (quoting
Martinez v. Matthews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243
(5th Cir. 1976)). A mandatory injunction is
warranted in only the most extraordinary circumstances.
Id. (citing Wetzel v. Edwards, 635 F.2d
283, 286 (4th Cir. 1980)). Further, it is well
established that “absent the most extraordinary
circumstances, federal courts are not to immerse themselves
in the management of state prisons or substitute their
judgment for that of the trained penological authorities
charged with the administration of such facilities.”
Taylor, 34 F.3d at 268; see Rogers v.
Scurr, 676 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982)
(“judicial restraint is especially called for in
dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison
alleges that, in retaliation for filing the instant lawsuit,
he was deprived of a religious meal on October 9, 2018 and
was denied recreation that day. He was denied the opportunity
to speak to the Officer in Charge and, as a result, he
declared a hunger strike. When Plaintiff refused a cell
search because he believed his religious personal property
would be taken, Officer Robert Marsh stated “I will get
you back….” (Doc. No. 25 at 2). He claims that
Officer Davis punched the back of his head and called him a
“snitch” for filing the lawsuit. (Doc. No. 27 at
2). He further alleges that medical did not conduct adequate
restrictive housing checks between October 9 and 16, and that
his requests to declare a medical emergency and to speak to
the officer in charge have been denied even though he has
been on a hunger strike for more than 24 hours and was
assaulted. He was given two statement forms on October 11,
2018. Plaintiff asks to be transferred to another facility
and for whatever relief is just and appropriate.
Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's
Motions seeking preliminary injunction/temporary restraining
order, (Doc. No. 34).
filed a Response arguing that Plaintiff's Motions are an
attempt to bring new claims into this lawsuit which should
not be allowed because those claims had not been exhausted at
the time the initial Complaint was filed, and they have not
been screened for frivolity. (Doc. No. 36). Further,
Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he is entitled to a
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order because
he cannot show he is likely to succeed on the merits of these
new claims, he cannot show he is likely to suffer irreparable
harm, the relief he requests is not in the public interest
because it would require the Court to become involved in
prison administration, and the balance of hardships does not
tip in his favor. Defendants assert, and have filed
supporting evidence, that Plaintiff is not being denied
religious diet meals, as he has been on a religious vegan
diet since March 6, 2018, that he declared a hunger strike
but then accepted a meal before the 72hour period for an
official hunger strike had elapsed, and that he was not
punched and suffers no visible injuries from the alleged
punch by Officer Davis.
filed an unverified Reply alleging that Defendants'
affidavits in response to his Motion for preliminary
injunctive relief are false, that they are concealing their
perjury, and that his allegations are true. (Doc. No. 39)
has failed to demonstrate 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, or that an injunction is in the public
interest. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunctive relief will be denied.
Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 40), Plaintiff argues
that Defendants failed to respond to the Court's Order to
Show Cause, (Doc. No. 34), and that he should be granted the
preliminary injunctive relief that he seeks. Plaintiff's
Motion will be denied because it is factually incorrect
insofar as Defendants filed a timely Response on December 4,
2018. See (Doc. No. 36).
IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
Plaintiff s Motion for Notice of a Reprisal (Doc. No. 25), is
Plaintiff s Motion for Permanent Restraining Order,
Preventive Relief/Injunction, and Immediate