United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
STEVEN ANTHONY WALCOTT, JR.
TERREBONNE PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT, ET AL.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
E. KNOWLES, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Steven Anthony Walcott, Jr., filed this federal civil rights
action against various identified and unidentified
defendants. On September 22, 2017, the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that
plaintiff's complaint be dismissed as frivolous and/or
for failing to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. That Report and Recommendation currently
remains pending before the United States District Judge.
subsequently filed a document entitled “Preliminary
Injunction & Restraining Order.” He simultaneously
filed identical documents in two of his other pending cases:
Walcott v. Terrebonne Parish Medical Jail Staff, Civ. No.
17-6703 “G” (5), and Walcott v. Larpenter, Civ.
No. 17-6710 “B” (1). He also filed a
substantially similar document in a dismissed case which is
currently on appeal: Walcott v. Terrebonne Parish Jail
Medical Department, Civ. No. 16-15594 “B” (4).
The motion filed in the instant case was referred to the
undersigned for a Supplemental Report and
Recommendation. For the following reasons, it is now
recommended that the motion for a preliminary injunction be
denied for the following reasons.
initial matter, the Court notes that the motion largely
concerns matters wholly unrelated to the claims in this
lawsuit. Plaintiff's complaint in this matter was filled
with a litany of grievances; however, he appeared to be
asserting the following claims: (1) he was denied medical
care and medication for his pre-existing conditions; (2) he
was required to sleep on a mattress on the floor; (3) he was
housed with a “non-medical detainee, ” Leo
Kember, as a form of retaliation; (4) after a confrontation
with Kember, plaintiff was placed on segregated lockdown
without a hearing as a form of retaliation; (5) Kember's
placement on the shared unit posed a danger to plaintiff; and
(6) plaintiff was housed in unsanitary conditions while on
lockdown. On the other hand, plaintiff's instant motion
alleges numerous additional unrelated actions which he
believes also violated his rights. For example, his unrelated
allegations include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) his cell was illegally searched and his property was
confiscated; (2) his food was laced with substances to induce
hunger pangs; (3) officials tampered with his legal mail; (4)
he was subjected to religious discrimination; (5) he was
subjected to “psychological advances” which
caused him to act out inappropriately; (6) he was subjected
to “sexual seductive bribery” in order to tempt
him to violate his faith and commit a criminal offense; (7)
he was drugged with substances which caused him pain,
adversely affected his ability to concentrate, tried
“to change his sex from male to female, ” caused
him to experience “raging anger, ” and adversely
affected his sexual drive; (8) he was deprived of food and,
as a result, lost consciousness and soiled himself; and (9)
officials castrated him, causing his penis and testicles to
shrink and his semen to turn into “brown water.”
Where, as here, a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief unrelated
to the claims in his lawsuit, his request for injunctive
relief should be denied. See Martin v. Keitel, 205 Fed.
App'x 925, 929 (3rd Cir. 2006); Schwartz v. United States
Department of Justice, Civ. No. 06-5581, 2007 WL 2916465, at
*3 (D.N.J. Oct. 4, 2007) (“A preliminary injunction
grants intermediate relief of the same character as that
which may be granted finally. When the movant seeks
intermediate relief beyond the claims in the complaint, the
court is powerless to enter a preliminary injunction.”
(citations and quotation marks omitted)). Rather,
plaintiff's recourse is to file a new, separate action in
which his new claims can be properly evaluated. See, e.g.,
Romano v. Paunic, No. 8:13-cv-2515-T-23AEP, 2014 WL 55042, at
*2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2014).
to the extent that any of the allegations in the motion do in
fact relate to claims in this lawsuit, he still is not
entitled to the injunctive relief he seeks. One of the
requirements for a preliminary injunction is that there be a
substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the
merits of his claims. See, e.g., Valley v.
Rapides Parish School Board, 118 F.3d 1047, 1051 (5th
Cir. 1997). However, for the reasons explained in the
original Report and Recommendation, all of plaintiff's
claims in this lawsuit should be dismissed as frivolous
and/or for failing to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. Where, as here, a plaintiff's claims are subject
to dismissal on those grounds, he obviously cannot make the
necessary showing that there is a substantial likelihood that
he will succeed on the merits of his claims, and, therefore,
a preliminary injunction should be denied. See,
e.g., Gibson v. Gusman, Civ. No. 14-2273, 2015
WL 5060854, at *10 (E.D. La. Aug. 18, 2015).
therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's
motion for a preliminary injunction, Rec. Doc. 15, be
party's failure to file written objections to the
proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar
that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district
court, provided that the party has been served with notice
that such consequences will result from a failure to object.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Services
Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
 Rec. Doc. 10.
 Rec. Doc. 15.
 Rec. Doc. 16.