Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05031/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05031-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

TOMMIE JARED LOWDER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5031

SHERIFF TIM HELDER;

DEPUTY FOSTER; DEPUTY

WHITMILL; DEPUTY BALL;

and DEPUTY GOODHEART D EFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Tommie Jared Lowder, an inmate in the San Francisco County Jail, filed this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 9, 2006. When he filed the case, he was

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP). On May 2, 2006, he filed the instant motion for

preliminary injunction (Doc. 16). At the time, although service of the complaint had been

directed on the defendants by order entered on March 30, 2006 (Doc. 13), no proof of service had

yet been filed and defendants had not yet filed an answer. 

On May 12, 2006, counsel entered an appearance on plaintiff’s behalf. (Doc. 21). On

May 16, 2006, an answer was filed on behalf of separate defendants Sheriff Helder and Deputy

Foster (Doc. 22). A motion to quash service on the remaining defendants was granted by order

entered on June 2, 2006 (Doc. 25). Sheriff Helder and Deputy Foster have been directed to

provide the court with the current, or last known, addresses of the remaining defendants by June

21, 2006 (Doc. 25). Before the undersigned is Lowder’s motion for a preliminary injunction

(Doc. 16). 

Case 5:06-cv-05031-JLH-JRM Document 26 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

DISCUSSION

According to the allegations of the complaint, in November of 2000, Lowder was in

custody at the Washington County Detention Center (WCDC) in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Upon

being booked in and classified, Lowder alleges he revealed that he was a homosexual and

requested protective custody or administrative segregation. Lowder alleges his request was

disregarded and he was placed in a unit with felony sex offenders. Lowder alleges he was

housed alone with a man who sexually assaulted him causing him severe physical, mental, and

emotional injury.

Whenever he is detained at the WCDC, Lowder alleges he is intentionally harassed by

deputies. Lowder indicates the last time this occurred was in June of 2005. According to

Lowder, the intent of the deputies is to endanger Lowder’s safety in front of other inmates.

Finally, Lowder alleges that in retaliation for other claims, in June of 2005, he was placed

unnecessarily in a safety cell. Lowder alleges he was digitally searched, deprived of access to

drinking water or a toilet, clothing, a blanket, and a mattress for nine days.

As relief, Lowder requests that his current charges in Washington County, residential

burglary and possession of a controlled substance, be moved or overseen by a San Francisco

Court. Lowder also asks for compensation for the deliberate indifference to his safety, the

physical injuries he has received, and the mental anguish and public humiliation he has suffered.

In his motion for preliminary injunction, Lowder asks that defendants be enjoined from

further prosecuting him on the Arkansas state criminal charges. Lowder indicates he could plea

to the criminal charges from California. He asks that defendants be enjoined from extraditing

him from California. 

Case 5:06-cv-05031-JLH-JRM Document 26 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

In deciding a motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, the

courts are instructed to consider what have come to be known as the 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 that granting the injunction will inflict on other

interested parties; and (4) whether the issuance of an injunction is in the public interest. 

Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., 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). No single factor in itself is dispositive; rather, each factor must be considered to

determine whether the balance of equities weighs toward granting the injunction. See Sanborn,

997 F.2d at 486; Calvin Klein Cosmetics Corp. v. Lenox Lab., Inc., 815 F.2d 500, 503 (8th

Cir.1987).

"In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971), the

Supreme Court advanced the position that federal courts should refrain from interfering with

pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances." Harmon v. City of

Kansas City, 197 F.3d 321, 325 (8th Cir. 1999). Abstention under Younger "is warranted if the

action complained of constitutes the basis of an ongoing state judicial proceeding, the

proceedings implicate important state interests, and an adequate opportunity exists in the state

proceedings to raise constitutional challenges." Id. (citing Fuller v. Ulland, 76 F.3d 957, 959

(8th Cir. 1996)).

Here, Lowder asks us to interfere with an ongoing state criminal prosecution. He argues

that there is a real and immediate threat of irreparable injury. Specifically, he asserts the “real

Case 5:06-cv-05031-JLH-JRM Document 26 Filed 06/16/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

and immediate threat” is the possibility that he will be delivered via extradition into the custody

of the defendants. He maintains the defendants have violated his constitutional rights on more

than one occasion. 

Lowder has indicated the charges have already been filed against him in Washington

County, Arkansas. The prosecution of those charges is in the hands of the prosecuting attorney’s

office not the defendants. To grant Lowder’s request for an injunction would interfere with

pending state proceedings in a way that would offend principles of comity and federalism. See

e.g., Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, 163 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 1998). We cannot grant the

requested relief as this action would interfere in ongoing state criminal proceedings. 

CONCLUSION

I therefore recommend Lowder’s motion for an injunction or temporary restraining order

be denied. 

The parties have ten 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 16th day of June 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05031-JLH-JRM Document 26 Filed 06/16/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>