United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
A. Sargus, Jr. Chief Judge.
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHELSEY M. VASCURA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Rico Isaih Hairston, moves the Court for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 43) and
entry of default against both remaining Defendants (ECF No.
47). For the reasons that follow, the application for entry
of default is STRICKEN, and the undersigned
RECOMMENDS that the motion for temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction be
remaining Defendants were served with summons and copies of
the Complaint in this action on January 4, 2018 (see
ECF Nos. 44, 45). The Court afforded Defendants 45 days from
the date of service to answer the Complaint (see ECF
No. 36, adopted by ECF No. 39); therefore, their answers were
due on or before February 20, 2018. Plaintiff filed his
application for entry of default prematurely on January 25,
2018. His application (ECF No. 47) and the declaration in
support of the application (ECF No. 49) are hereby
STRICKEN. This Order does not preclude
Plaintiff from seeking entries of default in the event that
Defendants have not answered the Complaint within the time
allotted by the Court.
support of his motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction, which Plaintiff has styled as an
Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order, Plaintiff alleges conduct by various
officials and employees of the Franklin County Sheriff's
Office Center Main Jail 1to segregate Plaintiff, deprive him
of the use of the law library, force him to wear shackles and
handcuffs, record him, and otherwise harass him. The
undersigned observes that none of that alleged conduct
relates to the claims in this action.
Court may not grant the relief that Plaintiff Hairston
requests. As the United States Supreme Court has explained,
“[a] preliminary injunction is . . . appropriate to
grant intermediate relief of the same character as that which
may be granted finally, ” but is inappropriate where
the injunction “deals with a matter lying wholly
outside of the issues in the suit.” De Beers
Consol. Mines Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220
(1945). Thus, a district court does not have the authority to
issue injunctive relief on the basis of claimed injuries or
actions that are unrelated to the allegations in the
movant's complaint. See Colvin v. Caruso, 605
F.3d 282, 299-300 (6th Cir. 2010).
event, after Plaintiff filed the motion for equitable relief,
he advised the Court of a change of address (see ECF
No. 48). Because Plaintiff is no longer housed at the
Franklin County Sheriff's Office Center Main Jail 1, his
motion is also moot. See Sossamon v. Texas, 131
S.Ct. 1651, 1669-70 (2011) (citations omitted) (“A
number of . . . suits seeking injunctive relief have been
dismissed as moot because the plaintiff was transferred from
the institution where the alleged violation took place prior
to adjudication on the merits.”); see also Kensu v.
Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996) (concluding that
inmate's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief
were rendered moot upon inmate's transfer from the prison
about which he complained); Abdur-Rahman v. Mich.
Dep't of Corr., 65 F.3d 489, 491 (6th Cir. 1995)
(inmate's request for injunctive relief mooted upon
transfer from relevant prison); Lavado v. Keohane,
992 F.2d 601 (6th Cir. 1993) (same).
those reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS
that the motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction (ECF No. 43) be
party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party
may, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Report,
file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made, together with supporting authority for the
objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the Report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this
Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
parties are specifically advised that failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the
right to have the District Judge review the Report and
Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a
waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District
Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).