United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
TERRANCE L. JAMES-BEY, Plaintiff,
N.C. DEP'T OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., Defendants.
D. WHITNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's
“Appeal and Resubmission of Supplemental Complaint and
Emergency Injunction; Order to Recuse.” [Doc. 26].
previously filed a letter with the Court that was written by
another inmate, Xavius Mebane, on Plaintiff's behalf.
[See Doc. 23 at 2]. In the letter, Mr. Mebane
recounts various incidents related to a hunger strike
Plaintiff has undertaken in protest of various alleged
occurrences at Marion Correctional Facility. On
Plaintiff's behalf, Mr. Mebane sought to add three
Defendants to Plaintiff's pending lawsuit related to the
conduct alleged in the letter, an “emergency injunction
for immediate transfer, ” and “a protective order
against all Marion C.I. staff and their involvement with
[Plaintiff].” [Id. at 2].
Court advised Plaintiff that attempting to represent the
legal interests of anyone other than oneself, unless licensed
to practice in the State of North Carolina or admitted
elsewhere and specifically admitted, constitutes the
unauthorized practice of law, which is a criminal offense in
the State of North Carolina. See N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 84-4, 84-8. Plaintiff was further advised that he must
file his own motions, signed solely by him. The Court also
noted that even if Plaintiff had signed and filed the letter
before the Court, he would not be entitled to the relief
sought therein. First, Plaintiff cannot lump these three new
Defendants into his existing case based on the conduct
described in the letter. Second, Plaintiff has not stated
adequate grounds for the injunctive relief that he seeks in
the form of an “immediate transfer” or a
“protective order against all Marion C.I. staff.”
[Doc. 24 at 2-3].
now seeks to “reassert and incorporate all averments in
[the letter], herein, and request the demanded relief be
provided immediately.” [Doc. 26 at 1]. Specifically,
Plaintiff demands to add the three Defendants referenced in
the letter and “a protective order against all Marion
C.I. staff and their involvement with [Plaintiff].”
Plaintiff also demands recusal of the undersigned for
“collusion and incompetence.” [Doc. 26 at 3-4].
Plaintiff's demand to add the three Defendants referenced
in his letter, that request is denied. Plaintiff cannot add
these three new Defendants into his existing case based on
the conduct described in the letter. As previously noted by
the Court, the conduct of which he complains is not related
to the transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or
occurrences that form the basis of Plaintiff's Complaint.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2).
Plaintiff's renewed request for injunctive relief, that
request will also be denied. Plaintiff has requested and been
denied injunctive relief previously in this case. [Docs. 6,
7, 9]. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy
afforded before trial at the discretion of the district
court. In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig., 333
F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th Cir. 2003). It is an extraordinary
remedy never awarded as of right. Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). In each case,
courts “must balance the competing claims of injury and
must consider the effect on each party of the granting or
withholding of the requested relief.” Amoco Prod.
Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987).
“[C]ourts of equity should pay particular regard for
the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy
of injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24. To
obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must establish
(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. Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election
Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir. 2009),
vacated on other grounds by 130 S.Ct. 2371 (2010).
Plaintiffs motion based on the above factors, Plaintiff is
not entitled to an emergency preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the likelihood of success
on the merits and, therefore, injunctive relief is not
Plaintiffs demand for the recusal of the undersigned is
wholly without merit. Plaintiff contends that the undersigned
“sought to protect [Defendant]'s actions at every
opportunity, which is why [the undersigned] is a named
Defendant” and “shall” be recused for
“collusion and incompetence.” [Doc. 26 at 1-2].
These allegations are baseless. Further, the undersigned is
not a named Defendant in these proceedings. Plaintiffs motion
to recuse the undersigned will be denied.