UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MORRIS WEATHERSPOON,

#471817,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-12756

Plaintiff,

DISTRICT JUDGE LAURIE J. MICHELSON

v.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN

SURJIT DINSA, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On July 11, 2014, Plaintiff Morris Weatherspoon, a prison inmate in the custody of

the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), filed a pro se civil complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical conditions in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. Before the Court is his motion for injunction [Doc.

#90], which has been referred for a Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B). For the reasons that follow, I recommend that the motion be DENIED.

I. FACTS

Plaintiff’s complaint is based on his medical treatment while he was an inmate at

the Gus Harrison Correctional Facility. On September 12, 2013, he was transferred to the

MDOC’s Muskegon Facility, and is currently at the Baraga Maximum Correctional

Facility. His motion for injunctive relief is a bit hard to follow, but essentially he asks the

-1-

2:14-cv-12756-LJM-RSW Doc # 122 Filed 03/01/17 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 1235
MDOC, the Muskegon Correctional Facility, and the Marquette Branch Prison to transfer

him back to Muskegon, waive all disciplinary sanctions, assign him single cell

occupancy, and provide medical and dental treatment, including medical marijuana.

Plaintiff’s Motion, p.1.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Generally, in determining whether to grant injunctive relief, including, a court

must examine and weigh four factors: (1) whether the moving party has shown a strong

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the moving party will suffer irreparable

harm if the injunction is not issued; (3) whether the issuance of the injunction would

cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by

issuing the injunction. Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 305

F.3d 566, 573 (6 Cir. 2002); McPherson v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass’n, 119 th

F.3d 453, 459 (6 Cir. 1997) (en banc). “These factors are not prerequisites, but are th

factors that are to be balanced against each other.” Overstreet, 305 F.3d at 573. 

Notwithstanding this balancing approach, however, the likelihood of success and

irreparable harm factors predominate. Thus, “[a]lthough no one factor is controlling, a

finding that there is simply no likelihood of success on the merits is usually fatal.”

Gonzales v. National Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 225 F.3d 620, 625 (6th Cir. 2000); Michigan

State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1249 (6th Cir. 1997) (“While, as a general

matter, none of these four factors are given controlling weight, a preliminary injunction

-2-

2:14-cv-12756-LJM-RSW Doc # 122 Filed 03/01/17 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 1236
issued where there is simply no likelihood of success on the merits must be reversed.”).

Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating their entitlement to injunctive relief,

and their burden is a heavy one. “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy

which should be granted only if the movant carries his or her burden of proving that the

circumstances clearly demand it.” Overstreet , supra, at 573. “[T]he proof required for

the plaintiff to obtain a preliminary injunction is much more stringent than the proof

required to survive a summary judgment motion.” Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729,

739 (6th Cir. 2000). Thus, plaintiffs may not merely point to genuine issues of material

fact which exist, but must affirmatively demonstrate their entitlement to injunctive relief.

III. DISCUSSION

First, all Defendants except Defendant Jindal have been dismissed. I have filed a

Report and Recommendation [Doc. #120] that Jindal be granted summary judgment. For

the reasons discussed in my R&R, Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits is

negligible.

Moreover, the wrongs that Plaintiff alleges in his complaint occurred while he was

housed at the Gus Harrison Facility. He has not been at that facility since 2013. A

prisoner's claims for injunctive relief based on incidents occurring in one prison become

moot once the prisoner is transferred to another prison. Kensu v. Haight, 87 F.3d 172, 175

(6th Cir.1996). 

-3-

2:14-cv-12756-LJM-RSW Doc # 122 Filed 03/01/17 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 1237
IV. CONCLUSION

I recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for injunction [Doc. #90] be DENIED.

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days

of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR

72.1(d)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Howard v.

Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6 Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 th

(6 Cir. 1981). Filing of objections which raise some issues but fail to raise others with th

specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and

Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6 Cir. 1991); and th

Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6 Cir. 1987). th

Any objections must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” etc.; any

objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to

which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an objection, the opposing party

must file a concise response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. 

The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the same

order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to Objection #2,” etc.

s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

Date: March 1, 2017 United States Magistrate Judge

-4-

2:14-cv-12756-LJM-RSW Doc # 122 Filed 03/01/17 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 1238
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on

March 1, 2017, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla 

Case Manager 

-5-

2:14-cv-12756-LJM-RSW Doc # 122 Filed 03/01/17 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 1239