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.

Anderson v. Rios

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

December 27, 2018

Dexter Anderson, Plaintiff,
v.
M. Rios, Warden, Defendant.

          Dexter Anderson, pro se.

          Bahram Samie, United States Attorney for Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's objections (“Objection”) [Doc. No. 14] to United States Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez's October 17, 2018, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. No. 13]. Magistrate Judge Menendez recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction (“Motion”). (R&R at 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules Plaintiff's Objection, adopts the R&R in full, and denies Plaintiff's Motion.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff is currently confined in the Special Housing Unit at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth (“FPC-Duluth”), a minimum-security facility. (R&R at 1.) He alleges that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) plans to transfer him to another facility. (Id.) On October 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to prevent the BOP from moving forward with this planned transfer. [Doc. No. 1].

         First, Plaintiff contends that he has two medical conditions that require follow-up appointments and treatment, and that the planned transfer would cause him to miss essential care. (Mot. at 2-3.) Second, Plaintiff asserts that the BOP's planned transfer is retaliatory. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that prison officials at FPC-Duluth disciplined him and decided to transfer him to another facility because he exercised his First Amendment right in filing several grievances. (Id.)

         In a thorough and well-reasoned R&R, Magistrate Judge Menendez recommended that the Motion be denied because Plaintiff had failed to meet the Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 112 (8th Cir. 1981), factors for injunctive relief. (R&R at 1, 5.) On November 6, 2018, Plaintiff objected to Magistrate Judge Menendez's R&R. (Obj. at 1.)

         Plaintiff raises four objections to the R&R. First, he contends that the magistrate judge improperly concluded that he is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. (Id. at 2-6.) Second, Plaintiff objects to the R&R's finding that he failed to establish irreparable harm resulting from the transfer. (Id. at 6-8.) Third, Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge wrongly decided that he is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his retaliatory transfer claim. (Id. at 11-18.) And finally, Plaintiff objects to the R&R's conclusion that it would not be in the public interest to enjoin his transfer to another facility. (Id. at 18-22.)

         II. Discussion

         A. Legal Standard

         To determine if Plaintiff is entitled to a TRO or a preliminary injunction, a court considers: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiff's claims; (2) the threat of irreparable harm to Plaintiff; (3) the balance between that threat of harm and the injury that granting injunctive relief would inflict on other interested parties; and (4) whether the issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction is in the public interest. See Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 n.1 (8th Cir. 1981). No single factor is determinative and all must be viewed in totality when a court decides if relief should be granted. Id. at 113. Moreover, Plaintiff has the burden of proving that he is entitled to the injunctive relief he seeks. See Jackson v. Macalester Coll., 169 F.Supp.3d 918, 921 (D. Minn. 2016) (citing Watkins, Inc. v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844).

         This Court reviews de novo any portion of the magistrate judge's opinion to which specific objections are made, and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations” contained in that opinion. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(3).

         B. ...


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.