The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
KAIVEN LEMAR WESLEY PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 1:22-cv-01026
TIFFANY KINLEY, Jail Supervisor, Ouachita County
Detention Center (“OCDC”); NURSE STEPHANIE
HOLMES, Jail Nurse OCDC; CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER K. LIPPS, OCDC; DR. JOSEPH DELUCA,
Jail Doctor, OCDC; and CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
PEYTON POTTER DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United
States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and
Recommendation. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Legal Copies (ECF No. 55)
which the Court interprets as a Motion for Injunctive Relief. Defendants have not responded and
the time to do so has expired.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint on May 4, 2022. (ECF No. 1). He was granted in forma
pauperis status that same day. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on August
29, 2022. (ECF No. 33). In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants denied and
delayed providing him with medical care at the Ouachita County Detention Center (“OCDC”), and
violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights with retaliation and the conditions of
his confinement. Id.
In the instant motion, Plaintiff request the Court order Miller County Jail (“MCJ”), where he
is currently incarcerated, to provide him with copies of the motions he files with the Court. (ECF
No. 55). MCJ is not a party to this lawsuit.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs requests for injunctive relief. Federal
courts may issue an order for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) without first hearing from all
parties only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate
and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be
heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). By contrast, courts may issue preliminary
injunction only on notice to the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). Courts apply the same legal
standard for issuing a TRO or preliminary injunction. See S. B. McLaughlin & Co., Ltd. V. Tudor
Oaks Condominium Project, 877 F.2d 707, 708-09 (8th Cir. 1989). Required considerations
include: “(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of the balance between this
harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other interested parties; (3) the
probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest.” Dataphase Sys.,
Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981).
While no single factor, alone, is dispositive, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held
“the two most critical factors for a district court to consider in determining whether to grant a
preliminary injunction are (1) the probability that plaintiff will succeed on the merits, and (2)
whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted.” Chicago Stadium
Corp. v. Scallen, 530 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1976). Further, a “mere possibility” irreparable harm
will occur is insufficient. Sessler v. City of Davenport, Iowa, 990 F.3d 1150, 1156 (8th Cir. 2021).
“A movant must show he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief”
to establish the need for injunctive relief. Id. (emphasis added). The burden of proof for a
preliminary injunction rest on the movant. Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995). In
addition, the Eighth Circuit has instructed that “in the prison context, a request for injunctive relief
must always be viewed with great caution because judicial restraint is especially called for in
dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison administration.” Id. (internal
quotations omitted).
Finally, the Court has no authority to enjoin nonparties to a lawsuit unless such nonparty’s
interests “closely identify with those of the defendant, when the nonparty and defendant stand in
privity, or when the defendant represents or controls the nonparty.” Thompson v. Freeman, 648
F.2d 1144, 1147 (8th Cir. 1981) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d).
See also Pediatric Specialty Care, Inc. v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 364 F.3d 925, 933
(8th Cir. 2004) (reversing injunction as it applied to a nonparty concluding that nonparty's mere
“supervisory” role did not qualify as active participation within the meaning of Rule 65).
III. DISCUSSION
MCJ is not a party to this lawsuit, and there are no allegations MCJ is acting in concert,
closely identifies, or stands in privity with any parties to this action. Therefore, the Court has no
authority to enjoin MCJ and order it to allow Plaintiff unlimited copies of his court filings. Id.
Even if Plaintiff could show the Court had authority to enjoin MCJ, he has failed to
demonstrate injunctive relief is warranted. First, Plaintiff failed to allege he will suffer any
irreparable harm if his injunctive relief is denied. He does not allege the inability to make copies
of his motions is inhibiting his access to the court in anyway. To the contrary, the record here
shows, Plaintiff has filed thirty-three (33) separate filings since initially filing his Complaint in
May 2022. See Cody v. Slykhuis, No. CIV. 04-4169, 2006 WL 759683, at *3 (D.S.D. Mar. 23,
2006) (explaining the failure of a jail to provide unlimited access to a copy machine, without more,
is not a per se violation of the plaintiff’s access to the courts right).
Furthermore, Defendants deny all the allegations made against them by Plaintiff in his first
Amended Complaint. The Court has granted Plaintiff’s recent Motion for Leave to file a Second
Amended Complaint, and this amendment has not yet been filed, screened, or answered. At this
early stage of the litigation, it is impossible to determine whether Plaintiff will succeed on the
merits of his claims.
Lastly, in assessing the public interest, it must be remembered that “federal courts do not sit
to supervise state prisons, the administration of which is of acute interest to the States.” Meachum
v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 229 (1976). Granting injunctive relief at this point based on Plaintiff's
unsubstantiated allegations would amount to direct interference by the Court with the operation
and administration of the MCJ which is harmful to the MCJ and does not serve any public interest.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, I recommend Plaintiff’s Motion for Copy of Legal Papers (ECF No. 55) be
DENIED.
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 18th day of January 2023.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE