United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
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).
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.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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 (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.
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.
The Report and Recommendation
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.
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
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.
Petitioner asserts that his death is a future injury that
monetary redress would not adequately compensate.
Id. at 7.
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 ...