Albright v. GEO Group Inc et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOSHUA ROY ALBRIGHT, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-23-976-PRW
)
GEO GROUP, INC., et al., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (Doc 1).1 United States District Judge Patrick R. Wyrick referred the matter to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
(Doc. 4). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion titled “Request for Direction” (Doc. 34),
the majority of which the undersigned has liberally construed as a motion for a preliminary
injunction under Federal Rule of Procedure 65(a). 	For the reasons set forth below, the
undersigned recommends the Court DENY Plaintiff’s motion.
I. 	The Motion
In Plaintiff’s Request for Direction, he states that officials at Lawton Correctional
and Rehabilitation Facility (“LCRF”) have retaliated against him for pursuing his civil
rights claim, alleging that (1) he is eligible to be downgraded in security level and
1 Citations to the parties’ filings and attached exhibits will refer to this Court’s CM/ECF
pagination.
Case 5:23-cv-00976-PRW Document 42 Filed 04/11/25 Page 1 of 6

2
transferred to a halfway house but has not been transferred; and that (2) LCRF officials
have impeded his ability to receive benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs
(“the VA”) by ignoring the VA’s calls and requests. (Doc. 34, at 1-2). Plaintiff requests
that the Court “grant direction to the Plaintiff on what he needs to do” and assist in “getting
the facility to stop actions that seem like retaliation for the civil suit filed by the Plaintiff.”
(Id. at 2). Defendant Timm has not responded to Plaintiff’s motion.
II. 	Analysis
A. 	The Court Should Decline to Provide Plaintiff with Direction.
As to Plaintiff’s request that the Court grant him direction regarding how to address
his concerns, it is not the “the proper function of the district court to assume the role of
advocate for the pro se litigant.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
It is also not the proper function of the district court to provide a litigant with legal advice.
Kruskal v. Martinez, 859 F. App’x 336, 338 (10th Cir. 2021) (explaining that “the district
court could not give legal advice” to a pro se litigant); United States v. Althoff, 16 F.3d 417
(Table), at *2 (10th Cir. 1993) (“[I]t is improper for a judge to provide legal advice to one
party in a civil controversy.”). 	Therefore, though the Court must liberally construe
Plaintiff’s motion, see Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110, the Court should decline to provide Plaintiff
with direction on the concerns presented.
B. 	The 	Court 	Should 	Deny 	Plaintiff’s 	Request 	for 	a 	Preliminary
Injunction.
Regarding Plaintiff’s request that the Court assist in “getting the facility to stop
actions that seem like retaliation,” the Court liberally construes this request as a motion for
Case 5:23-cv-00976-PRW Document 42 Filed 04/11/25 Page 2 of 6

3
a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Procedure 65(a).2 Preliminary injunctions
“grant intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” De
Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945).
To obtain a preliminary injunction, [Plaintiff] must show that four factors
weigh in his favor: (1) he is substantially likely to succeed on the merits; (2)
he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) his threatened
injury 	outweighs 	the 	injury 	the 	opposing 	party 	will 	suffer 	under 	the
injunction; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.
Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1125 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation and brackets
omitted). 	“[B]ecause a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, the movant's
right to relief must be clear and unequivocal.” Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter–Day Saints v. Horne, 698 F.3d 1295, 1301 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
omitted).
First, the sole Defendant remaining in this lawsuit is Defendant Timm in her
individual capacity. 	Though Plaintiff alleges that the medical department overseen by
Defendant Timm has impeded his ability to receive VA benefits, Plaintiff does not allege
Defendant Timm’s personal participation in failing to lower his security level. The request
for relief regarding Plaintiff’s security level is therefore unobtainable against Defendant
Timm. See Folsom v. Knutson, No. CIV-13-632-D, 2016 WL 1171178, at *3 (W.D. Okla.
Feb. 26, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 1179211 (W.D. Okla. Mar.
2 To the extent that Plaintiff intended to seek a writ of mandamus, which serves “to compel
an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed
to the plaintiff,” 28 U.S.C. § 1361, such relief is unavailable because this Court may only
issue writs of mandamus against federal officials. See Amisub (PSL), Inc. v. State of Colo.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 879 F.2d 789, 790 (10th Cir. 1989).
Case 5:23-cv-00976-PRW Document 42 Filed 04/11/25 Page 3 of 6

4
24, 2016); Levie v. Ward, No. CIV-05-1419-HE, 2007 WL 2840388, at *23 (W.D. Okla.
Sept. 27, 2007).
Next, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate an adequate connection between his request
for a preliminary injunction and the allegations of unconstitutional conduct underlying his
claim. A movant seeking a preliminary injunction “must establish a relationship between
the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Little
v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation omitted); see also Terry
v. Jones, No. CIV-06-840-F, 2007 WL 962916, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 30, 2007) (denying
application 	for 	preliminary 	injunction 	because 	the 	habeas 	petitioner’s 	“application
concern[ed] alleged conduct entirely unrelated to his habeas petition”). “When the movant
seeks intermediate relief beyond the claims in the complaint, the court is powerless to enter
a preliminary injunction.” Stouffer v. Eulberg, No. CIV-09-320-C, 2010 WL 567998, at
*2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 11, 2010). Here, Plaintiff seeks relief based on conduct unrelated to
the conduct underlying his sole remaining claim. 	Though Plaintiff contends that LCRF
officials have refused to lower his security level and have impeded him from receiving VA
benefits in retaliation for his filing this lawsuit, this contention is merely speculative.
Plaintiff has not put forth specific facts connecting the conduct described in the motion to
the alleged violation of his constitutional rights or even to his filing this lawsuit. “[E]ven
if [Plaintiff] were to prevail on the merits of his claims in the [] complaint, the Court would
be powerless to grant relief for these unrelated and subsequent alleged wrongs.” Stouffer,
2010 WL 567998, at *3.
Case 5:23-cv-00976-PRW Document 42 Filed 04/11/25 Page 4 of 6

5
Lastly, “a federal court considering a motion for injunctive relief affecting the
conditions of a prisoner’s confinement must give substantial weight to the adverse impact
on public safety and on prison operation.” 	Folsom, 2016 WL 1171178, at *4 (citing 18
U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); Stephens v. Jones, 494 F. App’x 906, 911-12 (10th Cir. 2012)).
Granting Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief would sharply interfere with LCRF
officials’ ability to make decisions regarding the administration of the prison. See id.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
injunction.
III. 	Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
The 	undersigned 	recommends 	that 	the 	Court 	DENY 	Plaintiff’s 	Request 	for
Direction (Doc. 34) in its entirety.
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this Report
and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before May 2, 2025, under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The undersigned further advises Plaintiff
that failure to file a timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives his right
to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. 	Moore v. United
States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
Case 5:23-cv-00976-PRW Document 42 Filed 04/11/25 Page 5 of 6

6
This Report and Recommendation does not terminate the referral in the present case.
ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2025.
Case 5:23-cv-00976-PRW Document 42 Filed 04/11/25 Page 6 of 6