Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00418/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00418-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES DOUGLAS LEWIS, JR., #302892, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-418-CG-C

JODY CAMPBELL, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This § 1983 action is before the Court on plaintiff James Douglas Lewis, Jr.’s 

motion for injunctive relief (“motion”). (Doc. 9). This motion was referred to the 

undersigned for appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. 

GenLR 72(a)(2)(R) and (S). Upon consideration of Lewis’s motion, it is recommended 

that his motion be denied. 

I. Nature of Proceedings. 

A. The Motion.

In his motion, Lewis seeks an order for the “cessation of harassment, 

intimidation and discrimination of [him] by the staff and officials at G.K. Fountain C.C.

(“Fountain”).” (Id. at 1). Lewis alleges that on October 15, 2016, he was moved to Fdorm, which is an honor dorm that is a reward for inmates with good behavior. (Id. at 

2). “[B]ecause he is permanently disabled [he found] this dorm [to be] more suitable to 

his mobility needs.” (Id.). 

On November 7, 2016, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) contacted 

him in response to the formal complaint he filed “about being denied proper medical 

Case 1:15-cv-00418-CG-C Document 11 Filed 12/23/16 Page 1 of 5
2

care, and being housed in a dormitory that was non-conducive to his disability.” (Id.). 

In order to provide the DOJ with information it requested, specifically, names, dates, 

and times of the reported complaints, he contacted Corizon Health Services for access to 

his medical records. (Id.). Following this request, Lewis contends that inmates and staff 

in F-dorm singled him out for intimidation and harassment with respect to his medical 

needs and accommodations for his disability. (Id. at 3). 

On November 23, 2016, inmate Micheal Jones, at the behest of Correction Officer

Blackmon, confronted Lewis about having a plastic chair in his sleeping area. (Id. at 3). 

Previously, when Lewis had arrived at Fountain on March 26, 2016, he was issued a “no 

standing profile.” (Id.). Due to the bunk clearance, he must sit on his bed in a bent

position, which causes him great pain. (Id.). Therefore, he needs to sit in a chair in his 

living area. (Id.).

Lewis maintains that he continues to answer the DOJ’s questions concerning the 

complaint that he filed. (Id. at 4). However, “the practice and pattern of not meeting 

the needs of the disabled both physical and mental is a well known fact.” (Id.). 

On December 13, 2106, Lewis was removed from F-dorm without notice and 

returned to I-Dorm, which is alleged to be a dangerous dorm. (Id.). He was placed in 

“harm[’s] way by being housed where stabbings and fights, assaults and theft are a 

daily occurrence.” (Id.). He claims that being disabled and fifty-three years old, he 

cannot protect himself from able-bodied inmates. (Id.). Plaintiff contends that his 

return into a dangerous environment is punishment for his willingness to cooperate 

with the DOJ. (Id. at 5). 

In addition to complaining about the conditions at Fountain, he claims that he 

has already served forty-one months on charges for which he was accused but not 

Case 1:15-cv-00418-CG-C Document 11 Filed 12/23/16 Page 2 of 5
3

proven guilty, which, he believes, is sufficient to satisfy his ten-year sentence. (Id. at 5). 

Nonetheless, ADOC did not give him a parole date or its time calculations. (Id.). 

B. Complaint and First Amended Complaint. 

Lewis’s original § 1983 complaint (Doc. 1) and first amended complaint (Doc. 7) 

contain allegations related to his criminal proceedings and his convictions based on his 

guilty pleas. In these pleadings, he sued persons related to the criminal proceedings 

and convictions. (Doc. 1 at 5, 6, 8); (Doc. 7 at 6-17). Furthermore, in the first amended 

complaint, he named thirty-nine persons as defendants. (Doc. 7 at 6-17). However, not 

one of the persons named as a defendant in the prior complaints is employed by the 

Alabama Department of Corrections.

II. Analysis.

“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative 

positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.” University of Texas v. 

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 1834, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981). To prevail on a 

request for preliminary injunctive relief, the movant must show: “(1) [he] has a 

substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be suffered 

unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs 

whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if 

issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.” Forsyth County v. 

U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 633 F.3d 1032, 1039 (11th Cir. 2011). 

Furthermore, Rule 65(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governing 

injunctive relief and restraining orders, provides that every injunction or restraining 

order binds only “the parties; the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and 

attorneys; and other persons who are in active concert or participation with” an 

Case 1:15-cv-00418-CG-C Document 11 Filed 12/23/16 Page 3 of 5
4

aforementioned party, after the party has received the required actual notice.

FED.R.CIV.P. 65(d)(2)(A-C). Thus, a party from whom injunctive is sought must be a 

party to the underlying action. Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL 88 v. Abbott 

Laboratories, 72 F.3d 842, 842-43 (11th Cir. 1995) (finding that the court lacked subject 

matter jurisdiction over the motion for injunctive relief because it involved a non-party); 

Merritt v. Godfrey, 2015 WL 5439306, at *8 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (unpublished) (denying 

injunctive relief because Florida’s DOC from which he wanted injunctive relief was not 

sued, only prison officials in their individual capacities had been sued); cf. Zenith Radio 

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110, 89 S.Ct. 1562, 1569, 23 L.Ed.2d 129 

(1969)(“It is elementary that one is not bound by a judgment in personam resulting 

from litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been 

made a party by service of process.”); Ron Matusalem & Matusa of Fla., Inc. v. Ron 

Matusalem, Inc., 872 F.2d 1547, 1554 (11th Cir. 1989) (applying Hazeltine’s rationale to a 

request for injunctive relief). 

III. Conclusion.

Considering that the staff and officials at Fountain are not defendants to the 

original complaint or the first amended complaint, Lewis’s motion for injunctive relief 

against these non-defendants is due to be denied.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the 

manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in 

it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P.

72(b); S.D. Ala. Gen.LR 72(c). The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 

Case 1:15-cv-00418-CG-C Document 11 Filed 12/23/16 Page 4 of 5
5

3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations 

contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based 

on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time 

period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence 

of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if 

necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an 

objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is 

made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s 

report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection 

that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate 

Judge is not specific. 

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of December, 2016. 

s/ WILLIAM E. CASSADY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00418-CG-C Document 11 Filed 12/23/16 Page 5 of 5