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.

Young v. Leblanc

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

November 29, 2017

MICHAEL YOUNG
v.
JAMES LEBLANC, ET. AL.

         SECTION “B” (4)

          ORDER AND REASONS

         Before the Court is Petitioner Michael Young's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Preliminary Injunction. (Rec. Doc. 9). Magistrate Judge Roby's Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) (Rec. Doc. 14), and Petitioner's objections to the R&R. (Rec. Doc. 16).

         For the reasons enumerated below, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED; Petitioner's objections are OVERRULED; and the instant Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Petitioner Michael Young (“Petitioner”) is a state inmate housed in B.B. Sixty Rayburn Correctional Center (“Rayburn”). Rec. Doc. 14 at 1; Rec. Doc. 16 at 1. Petitioner filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Defendants[1] (Rec. Doc. 1), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Rec. Doc. 7. In the civil right complaint, Petitioner alleges that after he filed a Prison Rape Elimination Act complaint (“PREA”) against Defendant Officer Jules Hebert in 2015, Defendant Hebert labeled Petitioner a “snitch” to the other inmates. Rec. Doc. 16 at 2; Rec. Doc. 4 at 11. Petitioner asserts that because Defendant Hebert labeled him a “snitch, ” he is more prone to be physically and sexually abused by the other inmates. Furthermore, Petitioner asserts that the Defendant correctional officers refuse to adequately protect him from the other inmates' assaults. Rec. Doc. 4 at 11.

         On August 9, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction, claiming that he made numerous requests to the Defendants for either a transfer to another facility (Rec. Doc. 9 at 1) or additional protection from the assaults of other inmates'. (Rec. Doc. 9 at 3). However, Petitioner contends that the Defendants have denied all his requests (Rec. Doc. 16 at 2; Rec. Doc. 14 at 1); and as recently as September 28, 2017, he alleges another assault from his fellow inmates. Rec. Doc. 16 at 6.

         I. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

         a. The Report and Recommendation

         First, the R&R found that Petitioner is not entitled to a TRO and Preliminary Injunction. Rec. Doc. 14 at 3. The R&R grounded its finding on the conclusion that Petitioner neither proved an ongoing violation of his constitutional rights by the Defendants nor a substantial threat that he will suffer an irreparable future injury. Rather, the R&R found that Petitioner merely showed a speculative fear of danger. Id. The R&R also concluded that Petitioner could not identify any future harm that could not be adequately compensated by monetary redress. Rec. Doc. 14 at 3-4. Moreover, the R&R determined that because the court grants broad discretion to state officials with regards to decisions of prison security and discipline, Petitioner is not afforded any constitutionally protected interest that outweighs the Defendants' or public's interest in the maintenance of discipline at Rayburn. Rec. Doc. 14 at 4. Ultimately, the R&R recommended the Court deny Petitioner's Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction. Id.

         b. Petitioner's Objections

         Petitioner filed an Objection to the R&R, asserting seven arguments. Rec. Doc. 16. First, Petitioner argues that he is entitled to a TRO and Preliminary Injunction under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65 requirements. Id. at 4. Petitioner asserts that the Defendants failed to adequately protect him from inmates' assaults more than five times-as recently as September of 2017-thereby violating his constitutionally vested rights. Id. at 4. Petitioner contends that his death is a future injury that is irreparable. Id. at 5. Furthermore, Petitioner contends that the cost of his medical bills and the investigation of his death would be a greater disservice to the public interest than transferring him to another facility. Id.

         Second, Petitioner argues that because of Defendants' inadequate protection from on-going assaults by the other inmates, Defendants are committing a continuing violation of Petitioner's United States Constitution Eighth Amendment right. Id. at 5-6.

         Third, Petitioner asserts that his death is a future injury that monetary redress would not adequately compensate. Id. at 7.

         Fourth, Petitioner contends that he asserts more than a mere fear of harm or that the defendants will not protect him from assault by other inmates because he has been attacked by other prisoners more ...


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.