United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
KEITH M. WHITAKER, SR., Plaintiff,
MARTY V. DONINI, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Stephanie K. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge
civil action is now before the Court on Plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration, motion for a preliminary
injunction and motion to file a second amended complaint. The
motions will be addressed in turn.
Motion for Preliminary injuction (Docs. 15, 29)
seeks a prelinmary injuction to order Defefendants to allow
Plaintiff access to Scioto County's law library and
either Lexis or Westlaw access. (Doc. 15). Plaitniff also
request a conference with the Court to address this motion.
Plaintiff's requests are not well-taken.
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy designed to
preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial
on the merits can be held.” Tenn. Scrap Recyclers
Ass'n v. Bredesen, 556 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir.2009)
(emphasis added). An injunction decree should not be granted
routinely. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S.
305, (1982). “The decision to grant or deny a
preliminary injunction is within the sound judicial
discretion of the trial court.” Mt. Clemens v. U.S.
Env't Prot. Agency, 917 F.2d 908, 914 (6th Cir.1990)
(quoting Tyson Foods, Inc. v. McReynolds, 865 F.2d
99, 101 (6th Cir.1989)).
exercising its discretion with respect to a motion for a
preliminary injunction, a district court must give
consideration to four factors: (1) whether the movant has a
strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the
movant would suffer irreparable injury without the
injunction; (3) whether issuance of the injunction would
cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public
interest would be served by issuance of the injunction.
Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum, Inc. v.
Gentile Prods., 134 F.3d 749, 753 (6th Cir.1998). In the
Sixth Circuit, these four factors are to be balanced and are
not prerequisites that must be met. Thus, 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.
Donaldson v. United States, 86 Fed.Appx. 902, 903
has failed to establish the necessary elements for injunctive
relief. The record fails to establish a likelihood of success
on the merits. Plaintiff has made no attempt to support his
claims with any factual evidence. Likewise, he has failed to
establish that he will suffer irreparable harm absent
injunctive relief. Again, he fails to support his conclusory
allegations of irreparable harm with factual evidence. More
importantly, Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right
of access to a law library or legal assistance. See Lewis
v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996).
a movant's burden is even more difficult to satisfy
where, as here, a prison inmate seeks an injunction to obtain
affirmative relief beyond maintenance of the status quo. See
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2) (“In any civil action with
respect to prison conditions ... [p]reliminary injunctive
relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires
preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means
necessary to correct that harm.”); Texas v.
Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d
175 (1981) (“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is
merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties
until a trial on the merits can be held.”). Thus,
purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent irreparable
injury and to preserve the Court's ability to render a
meaningful decision on the merits (see United Food &
Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099 v. Southwest Ohio
Regional Transit Authority, 163 F.3d 341, 348 (6th
Cir.1998). Plaintiff has failed to allege any actual or
imminent injury. To demonstrate irreparable harm, a plaintiff
must show “actual and imminent” harm rather than
harm that is speculative or unsubstantiated.” Abney
v. Amgen, Inc., 443 F.3d 540, 552 (6th Cir.2006).
such, Plaintiff's motions for a preliminary junction and
informal conference are not well-taken and should be denied.
(Docs. 15, 29).
Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 22)
asks the court to recondiser its previous order striking
Plaintiff's amended complaint. Notably, Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint without leave of court in violation of
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
general rule, motions for reconsideration are not favored
unless the movant demonstrates: (1) a manifest error of law;
(2) newly discovered evidence which was not available
previously to the parties; or (3) intervening authority.
Meekison v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and
Correction, 181 F.R.D. 571, 572 (S.D. Ohio 1998) (citing
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d
Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1171 (1986)). Plaintiff
has not alleged any facts or cited any legal authority which
suggests that reconsideration of the Courts Order is
warranted. Moreover, Plaintiff subsequelty filed a motion for
leave to file an amended complaint, which will be addressed
below. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration (Doc. 22) should be DENIED.
Motion for leave to file a Second Amended ...