United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge.
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).
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
3. Any contact or communication, in any way or matter, with
the plaintiffs family.
(Doc. 9, PAGEID#:51).
determining whether to issue a temporary restraining
order/preliminary injunction, this Court must balance the
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
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 ...