White v. Spells et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
BUDDY LYNN WHITE 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-BAB
SERGEANT SPELL, SUPERINTENDENT
BYERS and MS. VICKY RAWLINS (All of
the ADC Arkansas Division of Correction
Ouachita River Unit)
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.1 	Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for “Injunction or Relief.”
(ECF No. 6).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an inmate confined to the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”). He is
currently confined in the Varner Unit of the ADC. On April 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Motion
for Injunction or Relief. (ECF No. 6). The Defendants have not responded to the Motion for
Injunctive relief.
1 Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on April 27, 2022. (ECF No. 9). Defendants were served and initially an
Answer was filed on behalf of all three Defendants. (ECF No. 15). Amended Answers were subsequently filed for
Defendants Rawlins and Byers, but not Spell. (ECF Nos. 18, 21). Defendant Spell is no longer an employee of the
Arkansas Division of Correction and has not requested representation by the Arkansas Attorney General. The Court
entered a Show Cause Order to Defendant Spell regarding his failure to file an Answer on August 12, 2022. (ECF
No. 30). This Order was served on Defendant Spell on August 24, 2022. (ECF No. 35). Defendant Spell has not
answered or otherwise responded to the Complaint.
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 43 Filed 09/13/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
In his Motion for Injunction, Plaintiff repeats his Complaint allegation that he was
assaulted by “NAE gang members” in April of 2021. (ECF No. 6 at 1). He asks the Court to (1)
compel ADC staff to return his legal work, documents, and writing supplies; (2) compel the ADC
administration to “stop interfering with the Plaintiff now prosecuting his 1983 Complaint;” (3)
compel the ADC to transfer him to a safer ADC Unit. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff also states he believes
the ADC will put an inmate in his cell to rape or attack him. (Id.).
In his Affidavit in support of Motion for Injunction, Plaintiff states that after he informed
the administration at his current place of confinement that he had filed this action, as well as filing
a grievance concerning his lost property, his legal paperwork and property were found and returned
to him. (ECF No. 8). He stresses that this occurred only after he filed this lawsuit. (Id.). Based
on this Affidavit, Plaintiff’s motion for injunction concerning his paperwork, writing supplies, and
his prosecution of this § 1983 lawsuit is now moot, and should not be considered further. The only
remaining issue is whether the Defendants should be ordered to transfer Plaintiff to a “safer unit.”
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).
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 43 Filed 09/13/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
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. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has not met his Dataphase burden. 	Plaintiff’s sole remaining request for
injunctive relief asks that he be transferred from the ADC Varner Unit to a “safer” Unit. The Court
notes Varner Unit is located in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Preliminary injunctive relief is
granted “to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity
to rule on the lawsuit's merits.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). Therefore,
the party requesting preliminary relief must “establish a relationship between the injury claimed
in the party's motions and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Id. 	Here, Plaintiff failed to
establish any relationship between the allegations in his Complaint and the injunctive relief
requested. 	Plaintiff is currently housed in the ADC Varner Unit, while all of his claims in this
lawsuit arise against staff in the ADC Ouachita River Unit for incidents he alleges occurred in the
Ouachita River Unit. In contrast, his Motion asks that he be transferred out of the ADC Varner
Unit. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief centers on his displeasure at being housed in a
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 43 Filed 09/13/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Unit different than the one in his Complaint, and at a Unit that is, moreover, outside the jurisdiction
of the Western District of Arkansas.
Further, Plaintiff’s request does not seek to preserve the status quo. Instead, he essentially
asks the Court to permit him to choose where he will be housed in the ADC while this case is
pending. This is not an appropriate request for injunctive relief. Prisoners also have no inherent
constitutional right to placement in any particular prison; to transfer to a particular prison; to a
particular security classification; or to a specific housing assignment. See Olim v. Wakinekona,
461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983) (“Just as an inmate has no justifiable expectation that he will be
incarcerated in any particular prison within a State, he has no justifiable expectation that he will
be incarcerated in any particular State.”). As Plaintiff has no federal constitutional right to choose
his ADC housing location, he has not met his burden of showing a likelihood of success on the
merits based on his current placement in the Varner Unit, and has failed to allege any irreparable
harm.
Finally, while not necessary to the conclusion here, the Court will also consider 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 ADC, which is harmful to Defendants and does not
serve any public interest. As noted above, the Court should grant injunctive relief only “with great
caution because judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and
intractable problems of prison administration.” Goff, 60 F.3d at 520.
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 43 Filed 09/13/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction or Relief (ECF No.
6) 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 13th day of September 2022.
/s/ 	Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 43 Filed 09/13/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>