United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Barrett, J. Litkovitz, M.J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge
an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
("SOCF"), brings this pro se prisoner civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that SOCF
employees Correctional Officer Brian Barney and Lt. Robert
Setty used excessive force against him in September 2014 in
retaliation for his use of prison grievance
procedures. (Doc. 3). This matter is before the Court
on plaintiffs renewed motion for an injunction pendente
lite (Doc. 135).
motion, plaintiff asserts that in February 2017,
non-defendants C/O John Doe, C/O Robertson, C/O Ally, Sgt.
Chirm, C/O Fry, and Lt. Eaches sexually assaulted and/or used
excessive force against him. (See Doc. 135 at 2-4).
Plaintiff seeks an injunction ordering his transfer to
another correctional facility. (Id. at 6).
determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the
Court must balance the following factors:
1. Whether the party seeking the injunction has a
"strong" likelihood of success on the merits;
2. Whether the party seeking the injunction would otherwise
suffer irreparable injury;
3. Whether an injunction would cause substantial harm to
4. Whether the public interest would be served by issuance of
a preliminary injunction.
Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir,
2000). The four factors are not prerequisites, but must be
balanced as part of a decision to grant or deny injunctive
relief. Id. A preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary remedy that should only be granted if the
movant carries his burden of proving that the circumstances
clearly demand it. Id. at 739.
plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary injunction or
temporary restraining order. The purpose of a preliminary
injunction is to maintain the relative positions of the
parties until proceedings on the merits can be conducted.
Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395
(1981); see also S. Milk Sales, Inc. v. Martin, 924
F.2d 98, 102 (6th Cir. 1991). 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."
Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 300 (6th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th
Cir. 1994)). "This is because '[t]he purpose of
interim equitable relief is to protect the movant, during the
pendency of the action, from being harmed or further harmed
in the manner in which the movant contends [he] was or will
be harmed through the illegality alleged in the
complaint.'" Id. (quoting Omega World
Travel, Inc. v. Trans World Airlines, 111 F.3d 14, 16
(4th Cir. 1997)). A court may not grant a preliminary
injunction when the issues raised in the motion are entirely
different from those raised in the complaint. See
Kaimowitz v. Orlando, 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997);
Omega World Travel, Inc., 111 F.3d at 16;
Stewart v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization
Serv., 762 F.2d 193, 198-99 (2d Cir. 1985).
case, plaintiffs motion is premised on a new claim against
parties who are not defendants to this action and over whom
this Court does not have jurisdiction. See, e.g., Shavers
v. Bergh, No. 2:07-cv-171, 2012 WL 1377169, at *2 (W.D.
Mich. Mar. 29, 2012) (Report and Recommendation),
adopted, 2012 WL 1377103 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 19, 2012)
("This court only has jurisdiction over the named
defendants and does not have authority to issue an injunction
against non-parties to this action."); Laster v.
Pramstaller, Nos. 06-13508 & 05-71140, 2009 WL
497407, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 24, 2009) (Report and
Recommendation), adopted, 2009 WL 790479 (E.D. Mich.
Mar. 20, 2009) (finding the court had no power to adjudicate
plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief because the court had
no personal jurisdiction over non-defendants). Plaintiffs new
claim concerning alleged acts of non-defendant correctional
officers in February 2017 is entirely separate from the claim
that defendant Barney used excessive force against him in
September 2014. (See generally Doc. 3); see
Kaimowitz, 122 F.3d at 43; Omega World Travel,
Inc., 111 F.3d at 16; Stewart, 762 F.2d at
198-99. If plaintiff wishes to contest the alleged February
2017 actions of these non-defendants, he must do so in a new
on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs renewed
motion for an injunction pende ...