United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
STEVEN ANTHONY WALCOTT, JR.
SHERIFF JERRY LARPENTER, ET AL.
VAN MEERVELD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
filed a document entitled “Preliminary Injunction &
Restraining Order.” Rec. Doc. 12. He simultaneously
filed identical documents in two of his other pending cases:
Walcott v. Terrebonne Parish Consolidated
Government, Civ. Action No. 17-1125 “S” (3),
and Walcott v. Terrebonne Parish Medical Jail Staff,
Civ. Action No. 17-6703 “G” (5). He also filed a
substantially similar document in a dismissed case which is
currently on appeal: Walcott v. Terrebonne Parish Jail
Medical Department, Civ. Action No. 16-15594
“B” (4). While expressing no opinion as to the
propriety of the motions filed in those other cases, this
Court finds that the motion should be denied with respect to
the instant case for the following reasons.
lawsuit, plaintiff claims that he has been subjected to
religious discrimination based on the fact that he is an
adherent of Islam. His instant motion, however, alleges a
litany of other unrelated purported violations, such as jail
officials (1) retaliated against him for filing grievances,
(2) illegally searched his cell and confiscated his property,
(3) improperly disciplined him, (4) gave him drugs and other
substances to adversely affect his health, mood, cognitive
powers, and sexual drive, (5) tampered with his mail, (6)
subjected him to “psychological advances, ” (7)
subjected him to “sexual seductive bribery, ” (8)
denied him medical care, (9) deprived him of food, (10)
castrated him, attempted to change his gender from male to
female, and attempted to turn him into a homosexual, and (11)
gave him a deadly disease.
as here, a plaintiff requests injunctive relief concerning
conduct unrelated to the underlying claims of his lawsuit,
such relief is not appropriate. For example, in a case in
which a prisoner tried a similar tactic, the United States
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals explained:
A court issues a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit to
preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until
the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit's
merits. See Dataphase Sys., Inc., v. C L Sys., Inc.,
640 F.2d 109, 113 & n. 5 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc). Thus,
a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily
establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the
party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.
See Penn v. San Juan Hosp., Inc., 528 F.2d 1181,
1185 (10th Cir. 1975). It is self-evident that Devose's
motion for temporary relief has nothing to do with preserving
the district court's decision-making power over the
merits of Devose's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. To the
contrary, Devose's motion is based on new assertions of
mistreatment that are entirely different from the claim
raised and the relief requested in his inadequate medical
treatment lawsuit. Although these new assertions might
support additional claims against the same prison officials,
they cannot provide the basis for a preliminary injunction in
this lawsuit. See Stewart v. United States I.N.S.,
762 F.2d 193, 198-99 (2d Cir. 1985). Thus, the district court
correctly ruled as a matter of law that Devose was not
entitled to a preliminary injunction.
Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir.
1994). Accord Power v. Starks, No. 4:16-CV-00045,
2017 WL 2062940, at *1 (N.D. Miss. May 12, 2017)
(“Because a preliminary injunction depends on the
prisoner's likelihood of success on the merits, a
district court should not issue an injunction when the
injunction in question is not of the same character, and
deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the
suit. Accordingly, courts have routinely declined to grant a
prisoner injunctive relief related to conduct unrelated to
the underlying claims of his lawsuit.” (citations,
quotation marks, and brackets omitted)); Lando &
Anastasi, LLP v. Innovention Toys, L.L.C., Civ. Action
No. 15-154, 2015 WL 12564201, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 15, 2015)
(“[W]hile a preliminary injunction is appropriate to
grant intermediate relief of the same character as that which
may be granted finally, a district court should not issue an
injunction when the injunction in question is not of the same
character, and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the
issues in the suit.” (quotation marks and brackets
omitted)); Schwartz v. United States Department of
Justice, Civ. Action 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)).
to the extent that petitioner's motion touches on matters
related to the religious discrimination claims asserted in
this lawsuit, he fails to establish that immediate injunctive
relief is warranted for the following reasons.
the law of this Circuit, a plaintiff must make a clear
showing that his case satisfies the following four criteria
before he can receive a preliminary injunction: (1) a
substantial likelihood exists that he will succeed on the
merits of his claim; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable
harm exists if the injunction is not granted; (3) the
threatened injury outweighs any harm to the defendants if the
injunction is granted; and (4) the injunction will not
undermine the public interest. See Valley v. Rapides
Parish School Board, 118 F.3d 1047, 1051 (5th Cir.
1997); see also Ingebresten v. Jackson Public School
District, 88 F.3d 274, 278 (5th Cir. 1996); Doe v.
Duncanville Independent School District, 994 F.2d 160,
163 (5th Cir. 1993); Holland American Insurance Co. v.
Succession of Roy, 777 F.2d 992, 997 (5th Cir. 1985). He
must satisfy all four factors; a failure to satisfy even one
of the four factors requires a denial of the preliminary
injunction. See Mississippi Power & Light v. United
Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985).
United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has frequently
cautioned that a preliminary injunction is an
“extraordinary remedy” which should be granted
only if the movant has clearly carried the burden of
persuasion on all four of the above prerequisites. See,
e.g., Cherokee Pump & Equipment Inc. v. Aurora
Pump, 38 F.3d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 1994). As a result,
“[t]he decision to grant a preliminary injunction is to
be treated as the exception rather than the rule.”
Id.; accord House the Homeless, Inc. v.
Widnall, 94 F.3d 176, 180 (5th Cir. 1996).
has utterly failed to meet his burden to show that such an
extraordinary remedy is warranted in this case involving
fairly routine religious discrimination claims. For this
Court to grant plaintiff immediate injunctive relief on those
claims, it would be required to insert itself into the
day-to-day operations of the Terrebonne Parish Criminal
Justice Complex - an action that would run directly counter
to the wide-ranging deference federal courts are to accord
jail administrators in the adoption and execution of policies
and practices which in their judgment are needed to preserve
internal order and discipline and to maintain internal
security. See Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576,
584-85 (1984). Such intrusiveness simply is not warranted at
this early stage of this proceeding and would clearly
undermine the public interest, especially in light of the
fact that plaintiff has failed to identify any irreparable
harm whatsoever which result to him if a preliminary
injunction is denied and his claims are instead adjudicated
in the normal course of this litigation.
of this reasons, plaintiffs motion for a preliminary
injunction is DENIED.
is hereby advised that he may file a motion for review of
this Order by the United States ...