Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hines v. Smith

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

March 27, 2018

Fredrick Dewayne Hines, Plaintiff,
v.
Michelle Smith, Tammy Wherely, David Rhesuis, Shar Mike, Sherilinda Wheeler, Unknown Magadanz, and Dan Meyer, Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          STEVEN E. RAU, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Fredrick Dewayne Hines's (“Hines”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 121].[1] 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 motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Background

         Hines 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.[2] See (id. ¶¶ 11, 41, 105).

         Hines 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).

         As a 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).

         B. Procedural Background

         In 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.[3]

         In his 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.[4](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].

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         A 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.