Lamb v. Branstetter et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
BLAZE CONNOR LAMB 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 6:24-cv-06134-SOH-MEF
LT. SUSAN BRANSTETTER;
DANIELLE CANNON;
JORDAN WARD;
PAYTON WICKLAND;
NURSE KAYLA;
NURSE JASON;
AARON STANDIFORD;
JAVAN ANGEL;
DEPUTY TRENT 	DEFENDANTS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge, referred
this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. Currently
before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 31).
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas on October 15, 2024. (ECF
No. 2). It was transferred to this District on Octeober 17, 2024. (ECF No. 6). On October 18,
2024, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit an Amended Complaint. (ECF No.
10). Plaintiff did so on December 19, 2024. (ECF No. 14). In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
alleges a variety of claims against 13 Defendants for incidents which he alleges occurred while he
was incarcerated in the Garland County Detention Center.0F
1
1 Full details are provided in the preservice screening Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29)
and will not be repeated here.
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 65 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff filed a document which was interpreted to be a Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order on June 11, 2025. (ECF No. 31). In this document he indicates he is currently incarcerated
in the Arkansas Division of Correction (ADC) Varner Supermax Unit. (Id. at 1). He raises claims
against ADC employees Tasha Griffin and Sgt. Dunlap. 	(Id.). 	The Defendants who have been
served to date in this case have not responded to the Motion, presumably because they have not
been named in it.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies to motions for injunctive relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. In determining whether to grant such motions, courts consider the following
Dataphase 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).
While no single factor is dispositive, “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 Court, moreover, is mindful 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.” 	Goff v. Harper, 60
F.3d 518, 520-21 (8th Cir. 1995).
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 65 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
III. 	ANALYSIS
The purpose of a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit is 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) (citing Dataphase v. Sys., Inc., v. C.L. Sys., Inc.,
640 F.2d 109, 113 & n.5 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc)). 	Thus, “a party moving for a preliminary
injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s
motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Id. (citing Penn v. San Juan Hosp., Inc., 528
F.2d 1181, 1185 (10th Cir. 1975)). The moving party—in this case, the Plaintiff—bears the burden
of proving a preliminary injunction is warranted. See Goff, 60 F.3d at 520.
Here, Plaintiff requests a TRO against ADC employees Griffin and Dunlap for incidents
occurring at the ADC Varner Supermax Unit. His TRO Motion, however, is wholly unrelated to
the basis for the lawsuit itself, which brings claims against Defendants involved in his incarceration
at the Garland County Detention Center. 	Defendants Griffin and Dunlap are not named as
Defendants in this case. Because there is no connection between the claims made in the motion
for TRO and the conduct asserted in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s TRO claims cannot form
the basis for injunctive relief in this case. See Hale v. Wood, 89 F.3d 840, 840 (8th Cir. 1996) (per
curiam) (“We reject [Plaintiff’s] contention that defendants’ allegedly threatening and retaliatory
behavior mandate granting injunctive relief, because [Plaintiff] failed to establish a connection
between these injuries and the conduct he challenged in the complaint.”); Devose, 42 F.3d at 471
(concluding that retaliation claims cannot establish grounds for a TRO because they are entirely
different from the claims raised in the complaint); Owens v. Severin, Case No. 08-1418, 2008 WL
4240153 (8th Cir. Sept. 18, 2008) (unpublished opinion) (denying a prisoner’s request for a
preliminary injunction because the “the relief sought was unrelated to the allegations in his [§
1983] complaint”.). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s TRO motion fails as a matter of law.
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 65 Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reason discussed above, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 31) be DENIED.
The parties have fourteen (14) 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 30th day of October 2025.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:24-cv-06134-JTS-MEF Document 65 Filed 10/30/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>