United States District Court, D. Maryland
K. BREDAR, CHIEF JUDGE
March 20, 2018, this court ordered counsel for the Division
of Correction to respond to plaintiff's claim that his
safety is endangered by the presence of an inmate housed with
him at North Branch Correctional Institution (NBCI) and
granted plaintiff 21 days to file a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee. ECF 2.
Counsel's response has been received (ECF 7), but
plaintiff has not complied with the order. For reasons that
follow and in light of the response, which refutes the
allegation that plaintiff's safety is at risk, the fact
that the complaint seeks injunctive relief only, and
plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order,
the complaint shall be dismissed.
alleged that inmate Lamont Brown tried to sexually assault
him and when he reported it, NBCI staff improperly found that
the claim was unfounded. He further claimed that despite his
requests Brown's name was not placed on his enemies list.
Plaintiff also alleges that he is known as a snitch in the
general population of the prison, forcing him to pay for
protection. He states that his family can no longer provide
the funds for payment of that protection. ECF 1.
response counsel filed a declaration under oath from
Correctional Case Management Specialist John White who is
employed at NBCI and has been a correctional employee for 21
years. ECF 7-1 at p. 1. He states that on February 2, 2018,
plaintiff made a Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) complaint
against Brown. Id. at p. 2. Plaintiff's claim
was referred to the Internal Investigation Division (IID), an
investigation was conducted, and the case was ruled as
“unsubstantiated” on March 2, 2018. Id.
met with a social worker, Monica Troutman, on four different
occasions “for retaliation monitoring” and
“reported no issues related to PREA during those
sessions . . . but did mention concerns about debt he
was listed as Plaintiff's enemy on March 5, 2018;
however, Brown had already declared Plaintiff as an enemy.
Id. Brown is housed at NBCI, but is in a different
housing unit from plaintiff; White avers that the two have no
contact with each other. Id. Plaintiff's enemy
list also lists Cyril Williams as an enemy; Williams is
housed at Western Correctional Institution. Id.
has not filed an administrative remedy complaint concerning
his PREA claim, nor has he complained through the
administrative remedy procedure about his listed enemies or
threats to his safety. Id.
business records attached to the response confirm that both
Brown and Williams are listed as plaintiff's enemies. ECF
7-1 at p. 4. Further, an index listing the administrative
remedy procedure complaints filed by plaintiff confirms he
has not raised the issue regarding his safety or his enemies
list. Id. at pp. 7-8. Plaintiff has not disputed the
evidence submitted by counsel.
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic
remedy. See Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90
(2008). A party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order must establish the following elements: (1)
a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of
suffering irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in the
party's favor; and (4) why the injunction is in the
public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); The Real Truth About
Obama, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d
342, 346-47 (4th Cir. 2009). As to irreparable harm, the
movant must show the harm to be “neither remote nor
speculative, but actual and imminent.” Direx
Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Medical Group, 952 F.2d
802, 812 (4th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). In the prison
context, courts should grant preliminary injunctive relief
involving the management of correctional institutions only
under exceptional and compelling circumstances. See
Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d 266, 269 (4th Cir. 1994).
“Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a
possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with [the
Supreme Court's] characterization of injunctive relief as
an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear
showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.”
Winter, 555 U.S. at, 22 (citing Mazurek v.
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per
evidence submitted establishes that everything that could be
done to insure plaintiff's safety has been done.
Notwithstanding the fact that plaintiff's PREA report
could not be substantiated, measures were put into place to
insure that he is not exposed to his newly claimed enemy. The
claim asserted is without merit. Further, this court
forewarned plaintiff that his failure to file a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee would
result in ...