Campbell v. Oklahoma County Detention Center et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL A. CAMPBELL, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. CIV-22-399-R
)
WILLIAM MONDAY, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin’s Report and Recommendation
[Doc. 107] recommending the Court deny Plaintiff Campbell’s Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction [Doc. 89]. Plaintiff Campbell did not file a timely Objection.1
Judge 	Erwin 	noted 	the 	fatal 	flaw 	with 	Plaintiff’s 	motion. 	“[A] 	preliminary
injunction ‘grants immediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted
finally.’” Doc. 100 at 1 (quoting De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212,
220 (1945)). The Court would not be able to order transfer of Plaintiff to FCI El Reno at
the conclusion of this case, as he requests with this motion, so it may not do so
preliminarily.
Moreover, Plaintiff has been recently transferred to FCI El Reno without the aid of
this Court. Doc. 110. Thus, the issue is effectively moot. Smith v. Becerra, 44 F.4th 1238,
1 Plaintiff Campbell did object to a previously filed version of this Report and Recommendation
[Doc. 100, 102]. However, the Report and Recommendation was vacated and issued anew on
June 5, 2024. Docs. 106-07.
Case 5:22-cv-00399-R Document 113 Filed 06/25/24 Page 1 of 2

2
1247 (10th Cir. 2022) (“The crucial question [for mootness] is whether granting a present
determination of the issues offered . . . will have some effect in the real world.”) (quotations
omitted). Even if the Court could order Plaintiff to be transferred to FCI El Reno, the action
would now have no effect.
Thus, the Court ADOPTS Judge Erwin’s Recommendation and DENIES Mr.
Campbell’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 89].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of June 2024.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:22-cv-00399-R Document 113 Filed 06/25/24 Page 2 of 2