Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thompson v. Lewis

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division

October 17, 2019

Bobby Thompson, Plaintiff,
v.
Warden Scott Lewis, Associate Warden Curtis Earley, Felicia Ogunsile, Clayton Holbrook, Amy Enloe, Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          JACQUELYN D. AUSTIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and motion to extend the TRO. [Docs. 20; 36.] Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial proceedings in civil rights cases challenging prison conditions or conditions of confinement and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff initially filed his Complaint pro se on May 6, 2019.[1] [Doc. 1.] The Clerk docketed an Amended Complaint on June 21, 2019. [Doc. 14.] Then the Clerk docketed Plaintiff's motion for TRO on June 27, 2019, and his motion to extend the TRO on July 30, 2019. [Docs. 20; 36.][2] The motions are ripe for review.

         APPLICABLE LAW

         The standard articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), now governs the issuance of preliminary injunctions. See Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Elec. Comm'n, 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“On further consideration, we now reissue Parts I and II of our earlier opinion in this case, 575 F.3d at 345-347, stating the facts and articulating the standard for the issuance of preliminary injunctions.”). Under that standard, Plaintiff 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.'” Real Truth About Obama, 575 F.3d at 346 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). All four requirements must be satisfied. Id. Additionally, in order to obtain injunctive relief, Plaintiff must demonstrate more than the “possibility” of irreparable harm because the “possibility of irreparable harm” standard is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that a plaintiff is entitled to such relief. Id.

         DISCUSSION

         In his motion for TRO, Plaintiff alleges that he is suffering retaliation “by the [prison] administration . . .[, ] mainly those whom” Plaintiff has brought the present lawsuit against. [Doc. 20 at 2.] He alleges that his “medical issued hygiene for [his] severe skin condition [has been] taken.” [Id.] He also alleges that on June 21, 2019, he was not allowed to shower and he was refused his request for the return of his medicated soap and other skin medication. [Id. at 3.] In his motion to extend the TRO, Plaintiff asks for “an extension regarding the TRO that was issued this month.”[3] [Doc. 36 at 1.]

         Plaintiff does not address any of the Winter requirements and certainly does not allege that the complained-of actions would cause him to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that his motion for a TRO be denied. In the event that the motion for TRO is denied, the undersigned also recommends that the motion to extend the TRO be found as moot.

         RECOMMENDATION

         Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order [Doc. 20] be DENIED and that Plaintiff's motion to extend the temporary restraining order [Doc. 36] be FOUND AS MOOT.

         IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

---------


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.