IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ADAM CHASTEEN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-229 

 Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge King

ROD JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

On March 26, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge

recommended that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and

preliminary injunction, Doc. No. 2, be denied. Order and Report and

Recommendation, Doc. No. 10. This matter is now before the Court on

plaintiff’s objections to that recommendation. Objection, Doc. No. 18. 

Having considered the matter de novo, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b), the Court AFFIRMS that recommendation.1

Plaintiff’s motion asks that defendants be required to produce

evidence, that plaintiff be protected from further retaliation during the

pendency of the proceedings and that plaintiff be “immediate[ly]

release[d] to Transitional Control . . . .” Doc. No. 2, p. 2. The

Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied, reasoning that

plaintiff had not shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits:

Although certain of plaintiff’s claims will

proceed in this action, the Court cannot conclude

that plaintiff has satisfied the first prong of the

1

The Magistrate Judge also denied plaintiff’s request for the

appointment of counsel to assist him in his pursuit of interim injunctive

relief. Because the Court agrees with the recommended disposition of the

motion for interim injunctive relief, the Court also agrees with the denial of

plaintiff’s motion for a limited appointment of counsel.

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 32 Filed: 07/10/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
standard for interim injunctive relief. Although

plaintiff insists that he was subjected to

excessive force, the Complaint acknowledges that

there was testimony before the Rules Infractions

Board that contradicted plaintiff’s version [of

the] events.2 Although the course of proceedings

in this action may ultimately prove plaintiff’s

version correct, it cannot be said that, at this

juncture, plaintiff has established a strong

likelihood of success on the merits of this claim.

Plaintiff also alleges that he has been

denied medical care. However, some of the

dispositions of grievances attached to plaintiff’s

Complaint refer to medical treatment provided to

plaintiff. Again, although plaintiff may yet

prevail on these claims, the Court concludes that

plaintiff has not at this point made the strong

case required for the extraordinary remedy of

interim injunctive relief.

Although plaintiff’s claims of retaliation

will proceed, the Court likewise concludes that the

allegations supporting those claims do not justify

the extraordinary remedy of interim injunctive

relief. The Complaint offers little by way of

specific allegations of retaliation. Moreover,

although plaintiff insists that he was falsely

charged with and convicted of a prison rules

infraction, the fact remains that he stands

convicted of violating prison rules.

Order and Report and Recommendation, pp. 2-3. 

Plaintiff objects, first, to the fact that the Magistrate Judge

considered only one factor of the standard governing the issuance of

interim injunctive relief. However, the United States Court of Appeals

for the Sixth Circuit has expressly held that where, as here, the movant

has not established a strong likelihood of success on the merits, the

remaining factors of the analysis need not be expressly considered. 

Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1249 (6th Cir. 1997). 

Although plaintiff disagrees with the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge,

and argues the merits of his claims, this Court agrees that, at this

2

Plaintiff characterizes such testimony as false.

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 32 Filed: 07/10/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
juncture, plaintiff has not established a strong likelihood of success

on the merits. In any event, even considering the remaining factors

governing the analysis, Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir.

2000), the Court concludes that the extraordinary remedy of interim

injunctive relief is not appropriate on this record. In particular, the

Court concludes that the public interest would not be served by the

issuance of injunctive relief that intrudes to an unwarranted extent into

the operation of a prison. Moreover, a request for an inmate’s immediate

release, such as that made by plaintiff, is ordinarily inappropriate in

an action challenging conditions of confinement under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973)(a prisoner who seeks

immediate release must pursue a writ of habeas corpus).

Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that plaintiff’s

Objection, Doc. No. 18, is without merit. The Report and Recommendation,

Doc. No. 10, is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s motion for interim

injunctive relief, Doc. No. 2, is DENIED. With the denial of plaintiff’s

motion for interim injunctive relief, it follows that plaintiff’s motion

for the appointment of counsel to assist him in connection with that

motion is likewise without merit. The Magistrate Judge’s order to that

effect was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b).

 s/Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley

 United States District Judge 

Dated: July 10, 2012

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 32 Filed: 07/10/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>