# Hinger

> District Court, M.D. Tennessee · December 19, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11228657

## Case

- **Full name:** William D. Hamby, Jr. v. Damon Hininger et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** December 19, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11228657

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that federal restraint into intrusion of a state penal institution is counseled

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT COLUMBIA

WILLIAM D. HAMBY, JR. )
)
v. ) NO: 1:24-cv-00101
) Campbell/Holmes
DAMON HININGER et al. )

TO: Honorable William L. Campbell, Jr., Chief District Judge
R E P O R T A N D R E C O M E N D A T I O N
This pro se, prisoner civil right action has been referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial
proceedings. See Memorandum Opinion and Order entered May 27, 2025 (Docket Entry No. 9).
Presently pending before the Court are two motions (Docket Entry Nos. 34 and 35) filed by
Plaintiff that seek some form of preliminary injunctive relief from the Court. For the reasons set
out below, the undersigned recommends that the motions be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 22, 2024, William D. Hamby, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently
confined at the South Central Correctional Facility (“SCCF”) in Clifton, Tennessee, filed this pro
se and in forma pauperis lawsuit. See Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1). Plaintiff seeks relief under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on allegations that his constitution rights were violated in 2024 at the
SCCF when prison staff ignored serious risks to his safety and failed to protect him from physical
attacks by other inmates. Id. Upon the Court’s initial screening of the complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, the Court permitted the lawsuit to proceed against six defendants
- Grady Perry, Helen Moon, Joshua Carroll, Bethanie White, Jonathan Franks, and Theodore
Williams - in their individual capacities based upon Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims. Id. at
6-9. The Court dismissed all other defendants and claims. Id. at 9. Defendants have filed answers,
see Docket Entry Nos. 17 and 20, and a scheduling order has been entered in the case. See Docket
Entry No. 22.
II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

Plaintiff has filed a motion for preliminary injunction (Docket Entry No. 34) and motion
to “cease and dissist (sic).” (Docket Entry No. 35). In both motions, he complains that prison
officials and SCCF Warden Grady Perry have stolen, confiscated, or taken his property, legal
documents, and “federal papers,” including paperwork associated with this case and that prison
officials have placed him in danger by moving him to the main prison compound. He requests a
court order that: (1) requires his property and federal documents to be returned to him and prohibits
prison officials from confiscating his legal work; (2) requires that he be given legal phone calls;
(3) prevents him from being housed in the same area as the inmates who attacked him in 2024;
and, (4) requires all Mexican drug gang members be placed in segregation. Id.
Defendants have filed responses in opposition to the motions, asserting that Plaintiff has

not supported his motions or satisfied the requirements for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief.
See Responses (Docket Entry Nos. 37 and 39). Also before the Corut is Plaintiffs’ reply, in which
he sets out a rebuttal to Defendants’ response. See Docket Entry No. 40.
III. ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs requests for temporary restraining orders and
preliminary injunctions. A preliminary injunction is considered a preventive, prohibitory, or
protective measure taken pending resolution on the merits. See Clemons v. Board of Educ. of
Hillsboro, Ohio, 228 F.2d 853, 856 (6th Cir. 1956). Its purpose is not to remedy an alleged wrong

2
or to provide preemptive relief to a party but to “preserve the relative positions of the parties until
a trial on the merits can be held,” EOG Resources, Inc. v. Lucky Land Mgmt., LLC, 134 F.4th 868,
883 (6th Cir. 2025) (citing Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339, 345-46), and is considered
extraordinary relief. See Detroit Newspaper Publishers Ass’n v. Detroit Typographical Union No.

18, Int’l Typographical Union, 471 F.2d 872, 876 (6th Cir. 1972). A request for such relief should
be granted only if the movant carries a heavy burden of proving that the circumstances clearly
demand it. Overstreet v. Lexington–Fayette Urban County Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir.
2002).
In determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the Court must consider whether
the movant has established: (1) a “strong” likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that he will
suffer irreparable injury absent injunctive relief; (3) that the balance of the equities favors the
movant because the issuance of an injunction would not cause substantial harm to others; and (4)
that the public interest would be served by the issuance of the injunction. Sisters for Life, Inc. v.
Louisville-Jefferson County, 56 F.4th 400, 403 (6th Cir. 2022); Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729,

736 (6th Cir. 2000). Whether to grant a preliminary injunction is within the discretion of the
district court. Tenn. Scrap Recyclers Ass'n v. Bredesen, 556 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir. 2009).
The Court should exercise its discretion and deny Plaintiff’s motions. As an initial matter,
the motions should be denied for the threshold reason that they are not supported by an affidavit,
declaration, or any other type of actual evidence. The issuance of a preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary remedy that must be supported by some level of proof. Indeed, the proof required
for a party to obtain a preliminary injunction is much more stringent than the proof required to
survive a summary judgment motion. Leary, 228 F.3d at 739. Thus, a party seeking a preliminary

3
injunction must present “more than ‘scant evidence’ to substantiate [its] allegations.” Patel v. AR
Grp. Tennessee, LLC, 2020 WL 5849346, at *4 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 1, 2020) (quoting Libertarian
Party of Ohio v. Husted, 751 F.3d 403, 417 (6th Cir. 2014)). An unsupported motion, such as
Plaintiff’s two motions, must be denied.

Even if the motions were properly supported, the motions should nonetheless be denied.
Plaintiff essentially requests that the Court actively intervene on his behalf by overseeing aspects
of his incarceration and by providing him with affirmative relief prior to any resolution of his
claims. The Court finds no basis supporting such extraordinary relief. This action was only
recently filed, and Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits is no greater than that of
Defendants at this point. Plaintiff has also not made a persuasive showing that he will suffer
irreparable harm if the requested injunctive relief is not granted.1 The balancing of harms required
by the third factor also does not weigh in favor of the requested relief, and Plaintiff has not
persuasively demonstrated that a public interest would be advanced by the requested relief as is
required for the fourth factor. National Hockey League Players Ass’n v. Plymouth Whalers Hockey

Club, 372 F.3d 712, 720 n.4 (6th Cir. 2003). There is a “public interest in leaving the
administration of state prisons to state prison administrators.” Rhinehart v. Scutt, 509 F.App'x
510, 516 (6th Cir. 2013). Absent extraordinary and urgently compelling reasons, which have not
been shown by Plaintiff, the Court should not intervene in the day-to-day operations in a
correctional facility. See Glover v. Johnson, 855 F.2d 277, 284 (6th Cir. 1988) (setting forth

1 The Court is, however, concerned by Plaintiff’s assertion that legal papers, including
copies of orders entered by the Court in this case, have been confiscated from Plaintiff. Although
the Court finds that Plaintiff’s assertions do not support the entry of any type of preliminary
injunctive relief, the Court has addressed this matter in a separately entered order.

4
various public policy concerns relating to court intrusion into prison administrative matters and
holding that a federal court should not “‘attempt to administer any portion of a state correctional
system program except in the most compelling situations”); Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432, 438
(6th Cir. 1984) (noting that federal restraint into intrusion of a state penal institution is counseled);
Griffin v. Berghuis, 563 F.App’x 411, 417-18 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78,
82 (1987)) (decisions concerning the administration of prisons are vested in prison officials in the
absence of a constitutional violation, and any interference by the federal courts in that activity is
necessarily disruptive).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motions
for preliminary injunctive relief (Docket Entry Nos. 34 and 35) be DENIED.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen
(14) days of service of this Report and Recommendation and must state with particularity the
specific portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. See Rule
72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 72.02(a). Failure to file written
objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal the District
Court's Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Any response to the objections
must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. See Federal Rule 72(b)(2) and
Local Rule 72.02(b).
Signed By:
J. Gregory Wehrman } aff 2)
United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11228657. Public record. Not legal advice.