United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
E. RAU, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Fredrick Dewayne
Hines's (“Hines”) Motion for Preliminary
Injunction [Doc. No. 121]. This matter was referred for the
resolution of pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.1. For the
reasons stated below, the Court recommends denying the
is a prisoner confined in the Minnesota Correctional Facility
in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota (“MCF-OPH”).
(Compl.) [Doc. No. 1 ¶ 3]. He alleges that the Minnesota
Department of Corrections (the “DOC”) transferred
him from the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Stillwater
(“MCF-Stillwater”) to MCF-OPH allegedly because
of “bed space.” (Id. ¶¶ 11,
13). Hines nevertheless alleges the real reason he was
transferred was in retaliation for his filing of federal
lawsuits. See (id. ¶¶
11, 41, 105).
alleges inmates assigned to cells near him are located there
to intimidate or kill him. See (id.
¶¶ 18-27, 31, 38, 42, 51, 56, 58, 60, 62-63, 77,
80, 134, 136-37). Hines alleges that he informed various
MCF-OPH employees about the threats on his life, but no
action was taken. (Id. ¶¶ 29-30, 39, 45,
48-49, 55-56, 92, 121, 131-32). Instead, Hines alleges that
MCF-OPH employees took further action that endangered his
life, such as trying to move him to various areas within
MCF-OPH and conspiring with each other and with other inmates
to kill him in retaliation for filing a lawsuit.
(Id. ¶¶ 31, 34, 37-39, 41-42, 56-57, 60,
63, 65, 68, 106, 108, 141, 147).
result of the actions described above, Hines alleges that
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. ¶¶
151-57). Hines seeks (1) declaratory judgment; (2) an
injunction ordering him to be transferred to one of three
specific facilities, that Defendants and other DOC employees
be prohibited from harassing him, filing false reports,
opening his mail, and retaliating against him; and (3)
compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at 32-34).
October 2017, this Court recommended denying one of
Hines's motions for preliminary injunction, granting
Hines's motions to amend his complaint, and
correspondingly denying Defendants' motion to dismiss as
moot. See Hines v. Smith, No. 16-cv-3797 (DSD/SER),
2017 WL 5593526 (D. Minn. Oct. 23, 2017) (Rau, Mag. J.). The
Honorable David S. Doty adopted the recommendations.
Hines v. Smith, No. 16-cv-3797, 2017 WL 5564556 (D.
Minn. Nov. 17, 2017). Because the Court granted Hines
permission to amend his complaint, the Court also recommended
denying two additional motions for preliminary relief without
prejudice. See Hines v. Smith, 2017 WL 5593526, at
*4; see also (R&R Dated Nov. 1, 2017) [Doc. No.
108]. Judge Doty also adopted these recommendations.
Hines v. Smith, 2017 WL 5564556, at *1; (Order Dated
Nov. 27, 2017) [Doc. No. 110]. Hines's amended complaint
was initially due on December 18, 2017, but he has since
sought and received two extensions. See Hines v.
Smith, 2017 WL 5564556, at *1 (stating on November 17,
2017, that Hines's amended complaint was due in thirty
days); (Text Only Order Dated Jan. 8, 2018) [Doc. No. 116]
(extending deadline to February 15, 2018); (Text Only Order
Dated Feb. 12, 2018) [Doc. No. 120] (extending deadline to
April 13, 2018). This Court stated that Hines may file a new
motion for preliminary injunction after he files his amended
complaint. Hines v. Smith, 2017 WL 5593526, at *4.
Hines has not yet filed an amended complaint. Nonetheless, he
again sought preliminary relief on February 16, 2018, based
on grounds unrelated to his Complaint.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Hines claims that his
First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because
Defendants have confiscated his legal papers when they
transferred him from the Minnesota Correctional Facility in
Rush City (“MCF-Rush City”) to MCF-OPH. (Mot. for
Prelim. Inj. at 1). Hines alleges he is in danger and renews
the allegations he made in his previous motions-but not his
initial Complaint-that he has been raped while in custody and
is suffering from various physical and emotional injuries as
a result.(Id. at 2). He seeks an order
transferring him to the Federal Correctional Institute in
Sandstone, Minnesota; compelling Defendants to return his
legal documents; and ordering Defendants to stop torturing
him and retaliating against him. (Id. at 3). Hines
makes similar allegations in his accompanying memorandum, and
in subsequent letters filed with the Court. (Mem. of Law in
Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Inj.) [Doc. No. 122]; (Letters)
[Doc. Nos. 125-27].
preliminary injunction is issued “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) (per curiam).
[W]hether a preliminary injunction should issue involves
consideration of (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the
movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the
injury that granting the injunction will inflict upon other
parties litigant; (3) the probability that ...