Butcher v. Martin et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
JOHN R. BUTCHER 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 1:23-CV-01077-SOH-BAB
SHERIFF LEROY MARTIN, et. al. 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District
Judge, 	referred 	this 	case 	to 	the 	undersigned 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	making 	a 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
(ECF No. 5).
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on July 28, 2023. 	(ECF No. 1). 	That same day, the Court
entered an Order directing him to file an Amended Complaint by August 18, 2023. (ECF No. 3).
Plaintiff filed his Motion for Preliminary Injunction on July 31, 2023. (ECF No. 5). On August
2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Address Change, indicating he had been transferred from the
Columbia County Detention Center to the Arkansas Division of Correction. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file his Amended Complaint on August 28, 2023. (ECF
No. 12). This Motion was granted on August 29, 2023. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff filed his Amended
Complaint on August 31, 2023. (ECF No. 14).
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is centered on his incarceration in the Columbia County
Detention Center. 	Plaintiff alleges that he was denied medication prescribed by his free-world
physician. (Id. at 6-7). He also alleges various issues with the conditions of confinement at the
Case 1:23-cv-01077-SOH-BAB Document 17 Filed 10/26/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
facility. (Id. at 9). Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction asks the Court to order facility
staff to immediately give him his prescribed medications. (ECF No. 5 at 24).
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures governs the issuance of temporary
restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. In deciding a motion for a temporary restraining
order or a preliminary injunction, the courts are instructed to consider the following factors: (1)
the probability of success on the merits; (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the
balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other interested
parties; and (4) whether the issuance of an injunction is in the public interest. 	Dataphase Sys.,
Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc); see also Minnesota Mining and
Mfg. Co. v. Rauh Rubber, Inc., 130 F.3d 1305, 1307 (8th Cir. 1997); Sanborn Mfg. Co., Inc. v.
Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co., 997 F.2d 484, 485-86 (8th Cir. 1993). While no single factor
in itself is dispositive, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held “the two most critical factors
for a district court to consider in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction are (1) the
probability that plaintiff will succeed on the merits, and (2) whether the plaintiff will suffer
irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted.” Chicago Stadium Corp. v. Scallen, 530 F.2d 204,
206 (8th Cir. 1976). 	The burden of proving a preliminary injunction is warranted rests on the
movant. Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995). 	Further, the Eighth Circuit has
instructed that “in the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with
great caution because judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and
intractable problems of prison administration.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
It is not necessary to address the preliminary injunction factors at this time, because
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief was mooted by his transfer from the Columbia County
Detention Center to the Arkansas Division of Correction. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234,
Case 1:23-cv-01077-SOH-BAB Document 17 Filed 10/26/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
1239 (8th Cir. 1997) (release from the institution in which the injunctive relief is sought against
moots the request for injunctive relief). See also Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.
1985) (holding an inmate's claims regarding prison conditions moot once the inmate was
transferred and no longer subject to those conditions). Therefore, Plaintiff's request for injunctive
relief is moot.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF
No. 5) be DENIED as MOOT.
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 26th day of October 2023.
/s/ 	Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-01077-SOH-BAB Document 17 Filed 10/26/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>