United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Michael H. Watson, Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a pro se prisoner, has filed a number of Motions that are
presently before the Undersigned for consideration. His most
substantive Motion is a Motion for Order of Protection, (Doc.
6), which the Court is construing as a Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction. He has since filed 19 additional
motions: five Motions that seem to seek immediate injunctive
relief (Docs. 14, 20, 30, 31, 34); eight Motions for certain
discovery (16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 34); four Motions to
file new evidence (Docs. 15, 33, 36, 37); a Motion for a
private investigator (Doc. 19); and a Motion to appoint
counsel (Doc. 29).
foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that
Plaintiff's Motions for Injunctive Relief (Docs. 6, 14,
20, 30, 31, 34) be DENIED. Also, for the
reasons explained below, Plaintiff's other Motions,
(Docs. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 2933, 34, 36, 37),
are DENIED without prejudice.
an inmate at Ross Correctional Institution
(“RCI”), alleges that he and Defendant
Correctional Officer (“C/O”) Beavers engaged in
sexual acts “on a regular basis” in exchange for
drugs and other contraband. (Doc. 5 at 3). According to his
Complaint, on October 24, 2018, Defendant Beavers “ask
me to allow him to do (oral) sex on me and he would bring me
into the prison contraband items[.]” (Id.). At
this point, Plaintiff alleges that he “no longer wanted
to participate with him because he requested doing oral sex
and repeatedly calling by the name of (big) daddy.”
(Id. at 3-4). Plaintiff immediately lodged an
internal grievance against Defendant Beavers for “his
constant romantic name calling, and his demands of sexual
favors.” (Id. at 4).
October 25, 2018, Defendant Sexton called Plaintiff to his
office to discuss these allegations. (Id., Doc.
26-1, ¶ 12). The parties each have their own version of
what transpired at this meeting. According to Plaintiff,
after confirming that he had filed a complaint against
Defendant Beavers, Defendant Sexton ordered Plaintiff
handcuffed and moved to segregation. (Doc. 5 at 4). But
according to Defendant Sexton, when asked if he had any
further information about his allegations against Defendant
Beavers, Plaintiff “immediately became verbally
aggressive, rude, and disrespectful, ” and as a result,
“was placed in restrictive housing for his
actions.” (Doc. 26-1, ¶ 12). Consequently,
Defendant Sexton filed a conduct report against Plaintiff.
(Doc. 35-6 at 8). Plaintiff claims that this report is
inaccurate and was filed in retaliation. (Doc. 5 at 4).
next day, on October 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Prison Rape
Elimination Act (“PREA”) complaint against
Defendant Beavers. (Doc. 26-2). RCI officials investigated
Plaintiff's complaint and questioned staff members.
(Id. at 1). Plaintiff, however, “failed to
further cooperate with the investigation stating that he
would not be further questioned without an Attorney present
throughout the remainder of the investigation” and also
“refused to be seen, evaluated, or counseled” by
mental health or victim support services. (Id.).
the investigation was ongoing, Plaintiff also filed an
internal complaint against Defendant C/O Farmer for
retaliation. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Farmer told him
to “drop” his complaint against Defendant Beavers
and cursed at him because “he filed a PREA on my best
friend.” (Doc. 5 at 4-5). According to the PREA
report, RCI officials questioned Defendant Farmer about
Plaintiffs allegations and explained to him the PREA policy
regarding retaliation. (Doc. 26-2 at 1). “Officer
Farmer assured [the investigator] that he understood and [the
investigator] did not, and has not heard anything further
pertaining to Officer Farmer from inmate Lane.”
March 18, 2019, RCI investigators closed the PREA
investigation and concluded that Plaintiffs claims were
“unfounded due to the lack of evidence and the
continuous lack of cooperation involving the case.”
(Id.). The report concluded:
Inmate Lane was transferred to RCI due to being charged for
making weapons out of an issued knee brace. Inmate lane has
been requesting and doing anything he can to be transferred
from RCI to any Institution in the north. He is not suitable
for transfer due to his Rules Infraction Board history (RIB).
Just recently while performing unit rounds, inmate Lane
assured Mr. Diehl that he would continue filing complaints
until he is transferred back to the north, closer to home.
(Id. . at 2).
17, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this Court against
Defendants Beavers, Farmer, and Sexton. (Doc. 5). He does not
seek damages but seeks the following injunctive relief:
• for the Court to “grant [him] a federal order of
protection against both c/o Farmer and Beavers”; and
• that the Court “not allow for [him] to be placed
in segregation by this prison for any reason that's
directly due to the PREA [Prison Rape Elimination Act] that
[he]  filed on C/O Beavers, the informal complaints and
grievances that [he]  filed on staff members Farmer and
(Id. . at 6).
after Plaintiff filed his Complaint, he filed a Motion for
Order of Protection and Protection Against Being Placed in
Segregation by Plaintiff Vincent Lane. (Doc. 6). Because
Plaintiffs Motion seeks immediate injunctive relief during
the pendency of his lawsuit, the Court construes it as a
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
Motion, Plaintiff seeks slightly wider injunctive relief than
in his Complaint. He requests that the Court: (1)
“grant an order of protection against C/O Beavers, C/O
Farmer and Lieutenant Sexton”; (2) enjoin RCI officials
from placing Plaintiff in segregation; and (3) prevent ...