The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
CE’DRICK J. BROWN PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 6:24-CV-06017-SOH-CDC
MAJOR FREDRICK OTTS; SERGEANT B. MORGAN; and
CORPORAL SHANLEVER
DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Ce’drick J. Brown, a prisoner, filed this civil rights matter generally alleging that
the defendants used excessive force against him in violation of his constitutional rights. (ECF
No. 10). Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 3). Pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States
District Judge, referred this action to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and
Recommendation. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Intervene, his second.
(ECF No. 26).1 Defendants have filed no response and their opportunity to do has now passed.
This matter is, therefore, ripe for this Court’s consideration; and, for the reasons outlined below,
the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 26) be DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s “Motion to Intervene” consists of a wide-ranging list of grievances unrelated to
1 Plaintiff has also filed two motions to appoint counsel. (ECF Nos. 27, 28). Those motions will
be addressed in a separate order.
1
his claims against officials not named as defendants to this action. For example, Plaintiff says
that on August 8, 2024, and August 9, 2024, Ashley King rejected his grievance in violation of his
due process rights. He claims that Lieutenant Moni Stinyard has been “harassing” him and filing
false disciplinary reports against him. He says that on August 8, 2024, he was found guilty of one
of those disciplinary violations. He also claims that on August 8, 2024, he was “cut off” from
accessing his tablet, and that his request for a law library pass was denied because he did not submit
paperwork showing that he was subject to a court-mandated filing deadline.
Plaintiff further claims that when he was in custody in Camden, Arkansas, he was required
to sleep on a thin mattress; his criminal case was continued without just cause; he was tased in the
stomach by Officer Potter; and officials neglected to timely give him lunch. Additionally, he says
that when he was detained at the Omega Unit, he was provided secondhand socks and boxer shorts
and “dry-rotted” t-shirts, causing skin infections; he was not allowed an hour out of his cell when
he was punitive segregation from January 26, 2024, to April 17, 2024; and his cell was searched
in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Finally, he asserts several allegations against the parole
board, claiming parole board members spread misinformation about him to officials at the Omega
Unit, and that he was “cheated out” of his approved parole plan. Plaintiff requests “any such
remedies this Court deems appropriate and just.” (ECF No. 26, p. 8).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies to motions for injunctive relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. In determining whether to grant such motions, courts consider the following
Dataphase factors: (1) the probability of success on the merits; (2) the threat of irreparable harm
to the movant; (3) the balance between this harm and the injury granting the injunction will inflict
2
on other interested parties; and (4), whether the issuance of an injunction is in the public interest.
Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C. L. Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc); see
also Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Rauh Rubber, Inc., 130 F.3d 1305, 1307 (8th Cir. 1997);
Sanborn Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co., 997 F.2d 484, 485-86 (8th Cir.
1993).
As a threshold matter, however, “[t]he purpose of intermediate injunctive relief, whether
in the form of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, is to preserve the status
quo and protect the plaintiff from the harms alleged in his complaint until the court has the
opportunity to rule on the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.” Saylor v. Frakes, Case No.
8:20CV264, 2022 WL 767604, *1 (D. Neb. Mar. 14, 2022) (citing Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d
470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)). A party moving for such relief “must necessarily establish a
relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the
complaint.” Id. (quoting Devose, 42 F.3d at 471). “A plaintiff may not obtain a preliminary
injunction based on new assertions of mistreatment that are entirely different from the claims
raised and the relief requested in his underlying complaint. Id. (quoting Devose, 42 F.3d at 471).
III. DISCUSSION
This is Plaintiff’s second request for federal court “intervention.” See (ECF No. 24).
Again, this Court views Plaintiff’s motion as a request for some sort of injunctive relief, such as a
restraining order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. But this request, like the first, fails as a matter
of law but for an entirely separate reason.
Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish how any of the injuries he asserts in his motion are
related to his claims. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint asserts that on or about January 26, 2024,
3
Defendants Morgan, Shanlever, and Otts used force against him even though he was complying
with their orders. (ECF No. 10). None of the grievances Plaintiff identifies in his motion
concern this alleged excessive force incident. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for federal court
intervention should be denied on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to show how the injuries he
describes in his motion are related to his claims. This Court need not, then, analyze his request
for injunctive relief under the four Dataphase factors.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to Intervene
(ECF No. 26) be DENIED.
The parties have fourteen (14) 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.
STATUS OF REFERRAL: CASE REMAINS REFERRED.
DATED this 3rd day of October 2024.
/s/ Christy Comstock
CHRISTY COMSTOCK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4