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.

Surgenor v. Moore

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

March 8, 2017

JAMES SURGENOR, Plaintiff,
v.
GARY MOORE, et al., Defendants.

          Black J.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff, an inmate at the Lebanon Correctional Institution (LeCI), brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous LeCI employees claiming violations of his constitutional rights. This matter is before the Court upon plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order and affidavits in support thereof. (Docs. 9, 11).

         Plaintiff seeks an injunction enjoining defendants, their officers, agents, employers, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them from:

1. Any physical or verbal communication or contact with the plaintiff, James N. Surgenor during the course of the complaint, unless recorded by digital media and stored in a secured location so as to provide access to the Court, officers of the Court, all persons acting by order of the Court, and upon request by the plaintiff.
2. Discussing any details of the complaint with anyone other than legal representation, the Court, the plaintiffs legal counsel, or any other person unless given permission by the Court.
3. Any contact or communication, in any way or matter, with the plaintiffs family.

(Doc. 9, PAGEID#:51).

         In determining whether to issue a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction, this Court must balance the following factors:

1. Whether the party seeking the injunction has shown a "strong" likelihood of success on the merits;
2. Whether the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction;
3. Whether an injunction will cause others to suffer substantial harm; and
4. Whether the public interest would be served by a preliminary injunction.

Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty. Gov., 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing 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; Leary, 228 F.3d at 736. "[A] district court is not required to make specific findings concerning each of the four factors used in determining a motion for preliminary injunction if fewer factors are dispositive of the issue." Jones v. City of Monroe,341 F.3d 474, 476 (6th Cir. 2003). When a prisoner requests an order enjoining a state prison official, the Court must ''proceed with caution and due deference to the unique nature of the prison setting." White v. Corr, Med. Servs., No. 1:08-cv-277, 2009 WL 529082, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 2, 2009) (citing Kendrick v. Bland,740 F.2d 432, 438 n. 3 (6th Cir. 1984); Ward v. Dyke,58 F.3d 271, 273 (6th Cir. 1995)). In deciding if a preliminary injunction is warranted, the Court must "weigh carefully the interests on both sides." Lang v. Thompson, No. 5:10-cv-379-HRW, 2010 WL 4962933, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 30, 2010) (citing Dora ...


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.