United States District Court, D. Maryland
Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge.
Marshall, a Maryland Division of Correction prisoner housed
at Patuxent Institution, is scheduled for release on January
5, 2017. He states that defendants will not obtain shelter
for him in a drug treatment program or assisted living
facility located outside Baltimore. Instead, he will be
released to Baltimore, although his mother's house is
located several blocks from the family of Marshall's
victim. Marshall asks this court's
intervention regarding his post-incarceration housing because
he fears retaliation if he returns to Baltimore. (ECF 1 at
pp. 2-3). He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
(ECF 2). Given the nature of Marshall's request for
relief, his self-represented lawsuit shall be examined as a
mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 as well
as a complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the
reasons stated below, the lawsuit must be dismissed.
extent Marshall asks this court to require state employees to
abide by unspecified state law or agency directives (ECF 1 at
pp. 5-7), he seeks mandamus relief. This court does not have
jurisdiction over state employees in an action for writ of
mandamus. See generally Gurley v. Superior Court
of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.
1969); 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Thus, the claim for mandamus
relief will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of
extent that he seeks injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, Marshall cannot prevail. While incarcerated, he has
repeatedly filed complaints subject to dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and thus
is barred generally from civil filings under the Athree
strikes@ provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because Marshall
has “three strikes” under the PLRA, he is not
permitted to file a civil action unless he pays the full
filing fee or proves he is in imminent danger of serious
physical injury. As noted, Marshall has not paid the filing
fee.Aside from his speculative claim that he
may suffer retaliation if released to live in Baltimore,
Marshall does not demonstrate that he is in imminent danger
of serious harm.
courts have long recognized that the grant of interim
equitable relief is an “extraordinary remedy involving
the exercise of a very far-reaching power.” Direx
Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802,
811 (4th Cir. 1991). A plaintiff seeking such relief must
establish that he is “likely to succeed on the merits,
that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in
his favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest.” Winter v. National Resource Defense
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). All four of these
requirements must be established before injunctive relief can
be granted. See The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., v.
Federal Election Commission, 575 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir.
2009), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1089 (2010),
reinstated in relevant part on remand, 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir.
2010) (per curiam).
first and second Winter factors are dispositive
here: Marshall has not demonstrated that he is likely to
prevail on the merits nor that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm after his release unless provided special
housing. There is no basis for this court to order the DOC to
provide special housing as Marshall requests.
these reasons, a separate order shall be entered denying in
forma pauperis status, dismissing the mandamus claim without
prejudice,  and dismissing the remaining claims for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
 Marshall states he was convicted for
the 1985 second-degree murder of Clifton Cooper. (ECF 1 at p.
 See Marshall v. Lanham, No.
AW-97-990 (D. Md. 1997); Marshall v. Corr. Center of
Howard Cnty., No. AW-97-2536 (D. Md. 1997); and
Marshall v. Kemmerer, No. AW-02-2133 (D. Md.
 Given his “three strikes”
status, Marshall's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF 2) will be denied.
 Marshall may of course refile the
action and pay the full $400 filing fee at the time of
 It is clear from the complaint that
the DOC is aware of Marshall's concerns, but nonetheless
a copy of this memorandum will be sent to ...