Hawthorne #180295 v. Michigan Department of Corrections et al

-1-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICKY HAWTHORNE, #180295,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-416
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Directing
Michigan Department of Corrections to Provide Photocopy Loan. (ECF No. 43).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s
motion be denied.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff initiated this action alleging that his rights have been violated by the
refusal by prison officials to accommodate his physical disabilities. Defendants recently
moved the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to properly exhaust
administrative remedies. (ECF No. 24). To facilitate his response to Defendants’
motion, Plaintiff submitted to prison officials a “request for photocopy loan” pursuant to
Case 1:25-cv-00416-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/07/26 Page 1
of 4

-2-
Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) policy. 1 Plaintiff asserts that his
requested copies were provided, except copies of three MDOC Policy Directives that
Plaintiff sought to include as part of his response. Plaintiff now moves the Court to
order the MDOC to provide copies of the requested Policy Directives.
Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only if. .
.the circumstances clearly demand it.” Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). To obtain injunctive relief, Plaintiff must first
show that he “is being threatened by some injury for which he has no adequate legal
remedy.” Dana Corp. v. Celotex Asbestos Settlement Trust, 251 F.3d 1107, 1118 (6th
Cir. 2001).
If such is the case, the court must then examine several factors: (1) whether the
movant is likely to prevail on the merits, (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable
injury if the court does not grant the injunction, (3) whether a preliminary injunction
would cause substantial harm to others, and (4) whether a preliminary injunction would
be in the public interest. See Samuel v. Herrick Memorial Hospital, 201 F.3d 830, 833
(6th Cir. 2000). Rather than prerequisites which must each be satisfied, the relevant
factors, none of which are dispositive, are competing considerations to be weighed and
balanced. See Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Systems, Inc., 119 F.3d 393, 400
1 MDOC policy provides that prisoners “who lack sufficient funds to pay for copies of
documents. . .that are necessary for the prisoner to file with the court. . .shall be loaned
funds to pay for the copying.” MDOC Policy Directive 05.03.116 ¶ O (eff. Apr. 5, 2021).
Case 1:25-cv-00416-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/07/26 Page 2
of 4

-3-
(6th Cir. 1997). Ultimately, the decision whether to grant injunctive relief lies within
the court’s discretion. See Dana Corp., 251 F.3d at 1118.
Consideration of these factors weighs against Plaintiff’s request. First, as
Defendants note in their response to the present motion, Defendants included, as part of
their motion for summary judgment, copies of the Policy Directives in question. (ECF
No. 25, PageID.226-33, 252-54, 262-64; ECF No. 43, PageID.441-42). Second, Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate that the alleged refusal to provide copies of the requested
Policy Directives was improper. Considering that Defendants had already submitted to
the Court copies of the Policy Directives in dispute, whether it was necessary for Plaintiff
to likewise submit such seems less than certain. Third, even if the Court assumes that
the denial of such materials was improper or violated Plaintiff’s rights, Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate that he will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of relief.
Finally, the Court finds that interfering in the day-to-day operations of the Michigan
Department of Corrections in the absence of evidence warranting such would both cause
substantial harm to others and be contrary to the public interest.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Order
Directing Michigan Department of Corrections to Provide Photocopy Loan (ECF No. 43)
be denied.
Case 1:25-cv-00416-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/07/26 Page 3
of 4

-4-
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk
of Court within fourteen days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the District Court’s order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).
Respectfully submitted,
Date: January 7, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00416-HYJ-PJG ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/07/26 Page 4
of 4