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.

Whitaker v. Donini

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

June 24, 2019

KEITH M. WHITAKER, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
MARTY V. DONINI, et al., Defendants.

          Black, J.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Stephanie K. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge

         This 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.

         A. Motion for Preliminary injuction (Docs. 15, 29)

         Plaintiff 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.

         “A 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)).

         In 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 (6th Cir.2004).

         HerePlaintiff 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).

         Notably, 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).

         As such, Plaintiff's motions for a preliminary junction and informal conference are not well-taken and should be denied. (Docs. 15, 29).

         B. Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 22)

         Plaitniff 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.

         As a 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.

         A. Motion for leave to file a Second Amended ...


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.