Wesley v. Kinley et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
KAIVEN LEMAR WESLEY 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 1:22-cv-01026
TIFFANY KINLEY, Jail Supervisor, Ouachita County
Detention Center (“OCDC”); NURSE STEPHANIE
HOLMES, Jail Nurse OCDC; CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER K. LIPPS, OCDC; DR. JOSEPH DELUCA,
Jail Doctor, OCDC; and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
PEYTON POTTER 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), 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. 8). Defendants have not responded and the time to do so has expired.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 4, 2022. 	(ECF No. 1). 	He was granted in forma
pauperis status that same day. 	(ECF No. 3). 	Plaintiff alleges Defendants denied and delayed
providing him with medical care at the Ouachita County Detention Center (“OCDC”) for a hernia,
kidney and bladder issues, earaches, and headaches. Id. at pp. 5-8.
In the instant motion, Plaintiff states Defendants have retaliated against him for filing a civil
rights lawsuit against them and he would “like to be transfer to a federal holding that can meet my
medical care issue were the jail nurse and doctor can see me for my medical needs for my hernia
that is life threating and my kidney when I uring blood…I need to be transfer do to my life threating
hernia…” (ECF No. 8).
Case 1:22-cv-01026-SOH Document 19 Filed 08/04/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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 granting the injunction will inflict on other interested
parties; and (4) whether the issuance of an injunction is in the public interest. Dataphase Systems,
Inc. v. C. L. Systems, 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). In
addition, 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).
III. DISCUSSION
First, Defendants deny all the allegations made against them by Plaintiff. At this early stage
of the litigation, it is impossible to decide whether Plaintiff will succeed on the merits of his claims
concerning whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs.
Case 1:22-cv-01026-SOH Document 19 Filed 08/04/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Second, Plaintiff has not alleged he will suffer any irreparable harm if injunctive relief is
denied. It appears Plaintiff simply wants to be transferred from the OCDC to a different facility.1
Without a finding of irreparable injury, a preliminary injunction should not be issued. 	Modern
Computer Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc., 871 F.2d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 1989) (en banc).
Third, the Court must also balance the harm and injury to Defendants if an injunction is
granted and assess whether the issuance of an injunction would be in the public interest. 	In
assessing the public interest, it must be remembered that “federal courts do not sit to supervise
state prisons, the administration of which is of acute interest to the States.” Meachum v. Fano, 427
U.S. 215, 229 (1976). Granting injunctive relief at this point based on Plaintiff's unsubstantiated
allegations would amount to direct interference by the Court with the operation and administration
of the OCDC which is harmful to Defendants and does not serve any public interest.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, I recommend Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 8) be
DENIED.
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 4th day of August 2022.
/s/ 	Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 Specifically, Plaintiff requests transfer to a Federal prison facility. The Court is unaware of any procedure, and
Plaintiff has identified none, that allows transfer of a state prisoner to a Federal facility for medical care.
Case 1:22-cv-01026-SOH Document 19 Filed 08/04/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>