United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
FREDERICK D. GREEN, Plaintiff,
JAMES BLAIR and JAMAL FOREMAN, Lieutenant, Defendants.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EPPS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
an inmate at Rogers State Prison (“RSP”) in
Reidsville, Georgia, commenced the above-captioned case
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is
Plaintiff's Motion for an Injunctive Order. (Doc. no.
24.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court REPORTS and
RECOMMENDS Plaintiff's motion be DENIED.
names as Defendants: (1) Deputy Warden James Blair and (2)
Lieutenant Foreman. (Doc. no. 1, p. 1.) Plaintiff alleges the
following facts in his complaint. On August 8, 2017,
Plaintiff had a verbal altercation with Officer Robinson.
(Id. at 5.) Officer Robinson called the Corrections
Emergency Response Team (“CERT”). (Id.)
CERT Officers Haines and Mason placed Plaintiff in handcuffs
and, along with Deputy Warden Blair, Lt. Foreman, and Sgt.
Scott, escorted Plaintiff to the ID room. (Id.) Lt.
Foreman cleared the orderlies from the ID room so only
Plaintiff and the officers were in the room. (Id.)
Lt. Foreman then instructed Officer Haines to remove
Plaintiff's handcuffs. (Id. at 5, 8.)
was taken into the shower area by four officers.
(Id. at 8.) Lt. Foreman talked to Plaintiff about
disrespecting Officer Robinson and, without provocation,
struck Plaintiff on the left side of the head with a closed
fist and continued to strike him approximately five more
times with both an open hand and closed fist. (Id.)
During the assault, Sgt. Scott was “jumping around in a
Muhammad Ali-style fighting dance, ” while the other
officers instructed Plaintiff to keep his hands by his side.
(Id.) Deputy Warden Blair appeared in the shower for
a short period of time during the assault. (Id.)
Plaintiff was escorted to his dorm, where he requested
medical attention. (Id.) Lt. Foreman denied
Plaintiff's request and told Plaintiff he should go back
to his dorm or they would take him back to the ID room and
“make things a lot worse.” (Id.) As a
result of the threat, Plaintiff did not seek medical care.
(Id.) Plaintiff knew the threats were legitimate
because the CERT officers had assaulted other inmates since
Deputy Warden Blair became warden of security. (Id.)
The officials used their positions under the direction of
Deputy Warden Blair to “operate as a criminal street
gang” and carry out a conspiracy to assault inmates
with the sole purpose of causing pain, fear, and humiliation.
(Id. at 8-9.) Plaintiff's cellmate offered to
write a statement after hearing Plaintiff's story and
seeing his condition. (Id. at 9.) One of the
orderlies from the ID room also provided a statement about
Plaintiff's condition before and after leaving the ID
never received a disciplinary write-up for the verbal
altercation with Officer Robinson. (Id.) Plaintiff
filed a grievance on August 14, 2017, and Special Agent of
Internal Investigations Pittman interviewed Plaintiff on
August 18, 2017. (Id.) Lt. Foreman and several other
CERT officers were relieved of their duties on August 21,
2017, and Deputy Blair was relieved of his duties on
September 21, 2017. after further investigation into his role
in the assault. (Id.)
retaliation for reporting the incident, Plaintiff's
security level was raised from “medium to close”
by Johnson State Prison (“JSP”) administration or
Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDOC”)
executives or both. (Id. at 9-10.) There was no
legal or institutional justification for Plaintiff's
change in security level. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff did
not receive a write-up in his sixteen months at JSP before
the assault and received only one or two write-ups in the
four or five years before the assault. (Id.)
November 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for an injunction
against the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections to
prevent him from being housed at JSP or any facility where
Defendants are employed. (Doc. no. 24.) Plaintiff alleges
Defendants have been indicted on criminal charges, and
Plaintiff and other inmates are occasionally required to make
court appearances in Johnson County Superior Court regarding
Defendants' charges. (Id. at 1.) As a result,
GDOC will temporarily move him to JSP, where he is housed in
segregation until the scheduled court date. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges a No. of assaults occurred while in
segregation and being housed at JSP poses a significant risk
of injury from staff, who are friends or family of
Defendants. (Id. at 2.) During transfer for a
November 5, 2018 court date, the warden at JSP refused to
house any inmates involved in the case at JSP for their
motion for injunctive relief should be denied for three
reasons. First, because the Commissioner is not a party to
this action, the Court lacks jurisdiction to enter any
restraining order or injunction against him. Holmes v.
Williams, No. 6:15-cv-12, 2015 WL 4429092, at *8 (S.D.
Ga. July 20, 2015) (citing In re Infant Formula Antitrust
Litig., MDL 878 v. Abbott Labs., 72 F.3d 842, 842-43
(11th Cir. 1995)). Thus, the Court cannot grant the
injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks.
“[a] district court should not issue an injunction when
the injunction in question is not of the same character, and
deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the
suit.” Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d
41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997), opinion amended on other grounds
on reh'g, 131 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1997); see
also Bruce v. Reese, 431 Fed.Appx. 805, 806 (11th Cir.
2011) (“[Plaintiff's] request for injunctive relief
as to those causes of action was thus properly denied as they
were as outside the scope of the underlying suit.”)
(citations omitted); Head v. Gammage, CV 316-039,
2018 WL 1920171, at *2 (S.D. Ga. April 24, 2018) (denying
Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief because relief
sought concerned computer access and suit concerned
defendants' failure to protect him from substantial risk
of serious harm).
Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief because the
matters complained of are concerning separate incidents than
his claims in this lawsuit. Plaintiff's only claims are
an excessive force claim against Lt. Foreman and a failure to
intervene claim against Deputy Warden Blair for an assault at
JSP. (Doc. nos. 8, 14.) In Plaintiff's motion for an
injunction, he seeks relief concerning his safety at JSP and
fear of jail employees who are not Defendants. (Doc. no. 24.)
Because these allegations are factually distinct and concern
issues separate from the claim raised in his complaint,
injunctive relief is improper.
even if the Court considered the merits of the motion,
Plaintiff would not be entitled to injunctive relief. A party
moving for injunctive relief must show the following:
“(1) substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction
issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs
whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the
opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not
be adverse to the public interest.” McDonald's
Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998)
(citing All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda
Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir.
1989)). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary
and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant