COLEMAN v. PEIRSON et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
OSCAR COLEMAN, III,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 1:25cv268-TKW-MAF
OFFICER PIERSON, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a brief, one-page motion
requesting a “protective order transfer” to prevent staff at Cross City
Correctional Institution from retaliating against him. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff
generally asserts that a transfer is necessary to protect him from a
subsequent “attempt to finish” him off. 	Id.
Plaintiff did not, however, allege specific facts which show that the
named Defendants have threatened him or retaliated against him. Thus,
injunctive relief cannot be granted in this case because “a court may not
enter an injunction against a person who has not been made a party to the
case before it.” E.A. Renfroe & Co., Inc. v. Moran, 338 F. App’x 836,
Case 1:25-cv-00268-TKW-MAF Document 24 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
838-39 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court
lacks jurisdiction to direct unnamed and unidentified prison officials to take
action on Plaintiff’s behalf. 	See, e.g., Jackson v. Baisden, No. 21-13004,
2022 WL 610314, at *1 (11th Cir. 2022) (holding the district court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction to grant an injunction against a non-party).
In addition, Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because a decision
concerning where Plaintiff should be housed within the Florida Department
of Corrections is not a decision that can appropriately be made by this
Court. The law is well established that prisoners have no constitutional
right to remain in, or be transferred to, a particular institution with particular
rules, regulations and privileges. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S.
Ct. 2532, 49 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1976); Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 96
S. Ct. 2543, 49 L. Ed. 2d 466 (1976). “[R]unning a prison is an inordinately
difficult undertaking[.]” Pesci v. Budz, 935 F.3d 1159, 1165 (11th Cir.
2019). Matters pertaining to inmate safety and housing are issues best left
to the expertise of correctional officials as “courts are ill equipped to deal
with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform.”
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 405, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1807, 40 L.Ed.2d
224 (1974) (quoted in Pope v. Hightower, 101 F.3d 1382, 1384 (11th Cir.
Case No. 1:25cv268-TKW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00268-TKW-MAF Document 24 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
1996)). Because this Court has no authority to direct Plaintiff’s transfer, the
instant motion should be denied.
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a
protective order transfer, ECF No. 23, be DENIED and this case
REMANDED for further proceedings.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on December 4, 2025.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other
parties. 	A party may respond to another party’s objections within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). 	Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. 	If a
party 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 1:25cv268-TKW-MAF
Case 1:25-cv-00268-TKW-MAF Document 24 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 3