1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SHEDRICK THORNTON, §

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-00605-C (BT)

§

DR. MICHAEL PITTMAN, et al., §

 Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Shedrick Thornton’s “Request 

for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” (ECF No. 11). For the following 

reasons, Thornton’s motion should be construed as a request for 

preliminary injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order, and that 

request should be denied. 

Thornton is an inmate at Dallas County Jail, and he initiated this 

civil rights action, presumably under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by filing a 

complaint on March 10, 2022.1 At this time, the case is undergoing 

judicial screening, and the named Defendants have not been served. In 

his motion received on March 29, 2022, Thornton moves for 

1 A prisoner's pleading is deemed filed on the date it is delivered to prison 

officials for mailing to the clerk of court. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 

(1988). Thornton’s complaint is signed and dated March 10, 2022, and it is 

presumed to have been delivered to prison officials on that date. Compl. 9 

(ECF No. 3).

Case 3:22-cv-00605-C-BT Document 15 Filed 04/04/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 104
2

declaratory judgment on the basis that he was found incompetent to 

stand trial for a second time in Case Number F14-76804-H, and he 

remains confined in Dallas County Jail without bond, even though his 

trial was held on January 12, 2017. He claims that there is a 

“substantial likelihood” that he will suffer injury in the future in Case 

Number F19-70256, just as he has suffered in Case Number F14-

76804. Mot. 1 (ECF No. 11). Ultimately, Thornton moves for injunctive 

relief, he asks for the Court to ensure his bail remains at $10,000 for 

Case Number F19-70256, and he requests a petition for transfer in 

Case Numbers F14-76804 and F19-70256 away from Criminal District 

Court No. 1. 

For a movant to demonstrate entitlement to preliminary 

injunctive relief or a temporary restraining order, he must show (1) a 

substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat 

of irreparable injury if the injunction is denied, (3) the threatened 

injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result if 

the injunction is granted, and (4) the grant of an injunction will not 

disserve the public interest. Canal Auth. of the State of Florida v. 

Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974); DSC Communications 

Corp. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 81 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir. 1996). “The 

Case 3:22-cv-00605-C-BT Document 15 Filed 04/04/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 105
3

party seeking such relief must satisfy a cumulative burden of proving 

each of the four elements enumerated before a temporary restraining 

order or preliminary injunction can be granted.” Clark v. Prichard, 812 

F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1987).

Here, as the moving party, Thornton has the burden of proof to 

demonstrate entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief or a 

temporary restraining order. See Allied Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. CDL Mktg., 

Inc., 878 F.2d 806, 809 (5th Cir. 1989) (“A preliminary injunction is 

an extraordinary remedy and should be granted only if the movant has 

clearly carried the burden of persuasion with respect to all four 

factors.”). Thornton fails to demonstrate that he can show even one of 

the four necessary elements. Although he claims that there is a 

“substantial likelihood” that he will suffer injury in the future in Case 

Number F19-70256, he has failed to come forward with support for this 

bare allegation. Mot. 1 (ECF No. 11). Thornton’s request for a 

preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order must 

therefore be denied. See Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. United Gas 

Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985) (“The decision to grant 

a request for preliminary injunction is to be treated as the exception 

rather than the rule.”). 

Case 3:22-cv-00605-C-BT Document 15 Filed 04/04/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 106
4

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that 

Thornton’s “Request for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” be 

DENIED. 

SIGNED April 4, 2022. 

 __________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

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

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any 

part of this report and recommendation must file specific written 

objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). 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. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved 

party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the 

magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, 

except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services 

Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:22-cv-00605-C-BT Document 15 Filed 04/04/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 107