White v. Spells et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
BUDDY LYNN WHITE 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 6:22-cv-6037
SERGEANT SPELL, SUPERINTENDENT
BYERS, and MS. VICKY RAWLINS (all of the
ADC Arkansas Division of Correction Ouachita
River Unit) 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed on September 13, 2022, by the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF
No. 43. Judge Bryant recommends dismissing Plaintiff Buddy Lynn White’s Motion of Injunction or
Relief. ECF No. 6.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendants Sergeant Spell, Superintendent Byers, and Ms. Vicky Rawlins, employees of the Arkansas
Division of Correction (ADC) Ouachita River Unit, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. ECF
No. 1. 	Since then, Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint in which he alleges that Defendants
violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. ECF No. 9. On
April 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion of Injunction or Relief. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff requests
a preliminary injunction that does four things: (1) compels the ADC administration to return his legal
work, documents, and writing supplies; (2) compels the ADC administration to stop interfering with
the prosecution of his § 1983 claim; (3) compels the ADC administration to transfer him to a safer unit;
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 47 Filed 11/03/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
and (4) appoints counsel to him to protect him from the ADC administration’s interference.0F
1 ECF No.
6, at 2.
II. DISCUSSION
The Court may designate a magistrate judge to hear pre- and post-trial matters and to submit
to the Court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
After conducting an appropriate review of the report and recommendation, the Court may then “accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge . . . or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
“[T]he specific standard of review depends, in the first instance, upon whether or not a party has
objected to portions of the report and recommendation.” 	Anderson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good
Samaritan Soc'y, 308 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1015 (N.D. Iowa 2018). Generally, “objections must be timely
and specific” to trigger de novo review. 	Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 358-59 (8th Cir. 1990).
Recommendations that are not objected to are reviewed only for clear error. Grinder v. Gammon, 73
F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Where, as here, the plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction,
such an injunction is appropriate only 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) (per curiam).
Plaintiff has not objected, and the time for doing so has passed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
Court therefore reviews Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 43) for clear error.
See Grinder, 73 F.3d at 795. After careful consideration, the Court finds that Judge Bryant did not
clearly err in recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion of Injunction or Relief (ECF No. 6) should be
1In Plaintiff’s Motion, he sets forth five requests, rather than four. See ECF No. 6, at 2. However, in one of those
requests, Plaintiff states only that he “truely [sic] believes that his life is in danger,” which is, alone, not a request for
relief. ECF No. 6, at 2.
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 47 Filed 11/03/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
denied. 	However, although the Court agrees with Judge Bryant’s ultimate conclusion, the Court
modifies part of Judge Bryant’s analysis, as is the Court’s prerogative. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Judge Bryant finds that two of Plaintiff’s requests—that the Court compel the ADC
administration to return his documents and supplies and compel the ADC administration to stop
interfering with his prosecution—are moot. ECF No. 43, at 2. Judge Bryant then finds that Plaintiff’s
request for the Court to transfer him to a safer unit should be denied because it is unrelated to the
allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Plaintiff has not successfully shown that he is
entitled to injunctive relief because his request does not seek to preserve the status quo, and the relief
requested would “amount to direct interference by the Court with the operation and administration of
the ADC.” ECF No. 43, at 4. Finally, Judge Bryant does not address Plaintiff’s request that the Court
approve his motion for appointment of counsel, presumably because that request relates to Plaintiff’s
allegation that the ADC administration “continue[s] to interfere[e] with him prosecuting his 1983
Complaint,” which Judge Bryant believes to be moot. ECF No. 6, at 2.
The Court agrees with and adopts Judge Bryant’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s request for the
Court to compel the return of his documents and supplies is moot, as well as Judge Bryant’s conclusion
that Plaintiff’s request for a transfer should be denied. However, the fact that ADC staff have returned
Plaintiff’s documents and supplies does not also moot Plaintiff’s request for protection from
interference with the prosecution of his claim or request for appointment of counsel. Each of Plaintiff’s
requests are distinct from one another, as indicated by the fact that Plaintiff sets forth those requests
separately, labeling each with a different number, see ECF No. 6, at 2, and his requests must be
analyzed as such.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for protection and request for counsel should be denied
because both requests, like his request for transfer, are “based on new assertions of mistreatment that
are entirely different from the claim raised and the relief requested in his inadequate medical treatment
lawsuit.” Devose, 42 F.3d at 471. In Plaintiff’s Motion of Injunction or Relief, Plaintiff alleges harm
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 47 Filed 11/03/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
inflicted by ADC employees at the Varner Unit, but in his Amended Complaint, he alleges harm that
was inflicted by ADC employees at the Ouachita Unit. 	For any relief sought for harm inflicted by
employees of the ADC Varner Unit, Plaintiff “must file a separate lawsuit, after he has fully exhausted
any available administrative remedies.” Buchanan v. Mayee, No. 2:21-cv-13, 2021 WL 4901747, at
*2 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 22, 2021).1F
2
In sum, the Court adopts Judge Bryant’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s request for production
of documents and supplies be denied because it is moot and recommendation that Plaintiff’s request
for transfer be denied because it is unrelated to the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint.
However, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for protection from interference with his prosecution
and request for appointment of counsel should be denied because those requests, like his request for
transfer, do not relate to the allegations contained in his Amended Complaint. Ultimately, the Court
agrees with Judge Bryant’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s Motion of Injunction or Relief should be denied,
albeit for different reasons.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. ECF
No. 43. Plaintiff’s Motion of Injunction or Relief (ECF No. 6) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of November, 2022.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
2Plaintiff previously filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 12), which Judge Bryant denied (ECF No. 13).
However, because Plaintiff lists this request for appointment of counsel and specifically states that counsel is needed
to assist him “[s]ince ADC continues to interfere with him prosecuting his 1983 Complaint,” the Court treats it as a
new request. Still, because the instant request for appointment of counsel concerns the Varner Unit employees’ alleged
interference with Plaintiff’s prosecution, the request is denied.
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 47 Filed 11/03/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>