1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

RAVON L. JETER, SR., Case No. 1:17-cv-756

Plaintiff, Barrett, J.

Bowman, M.J.

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 

REHABILITATION AND 

CORRECTION, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. Background

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”), filed suit 

against multiple SOCF employees and institutional Defendants.1 Upon initial screening, 

most of Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim, but an Eighth 

Amendment claim relating to a July 24, 2017 incident against four Defendants and a 

related deliberate indifference to medical needs claim against a fifth Defendant were 

permitted to proceed. (Doc. 4). 

Plaintiff recently filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and for a 

preliminary injunction relief, seeking transfer from SOCF to another facility, on the basis 

that the named Defendants’ “friends,” unidentified individual non-parties employed at 

SOCF, continue to harass Plaintiff in various ways, including by searching his cell and 

throwing around his property, by making verbal threats, by writing additional false conduct 

 

1The undersigned takes judicial notice of the fact that this is Plaintiff’s second proceeding in this Court. See 

Jeter v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. And Corrections, Case No. 1:17-cv-756.

Case: 1:17-cv-00756-TSB-SKB Doc #: 18 Filed: 07/02/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 109
2

reports (a claim dismissed from Plaintiff’s original complaint as insufficient to state a claim 

against Defendants), and by denying him access to his breathing machine on unspecified 

dates when mace was used against other inmates. Construing Plaintiff’s motion liberally, 

he appears to seek a transfer to another prison facility and/or an order enjoining any 

SOCF employee or official from “harassing” him, using mace against him, or interfering 

with his property. (See Doc. 15 at 3-4). 

Defendants have filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s 

motion for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief should be denied for the 

following reasons.

II. Analysis

In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the Court must examine 

four factors: (1) whether the movant has shown a strong likelihood of success on the 

merits; (2) whether the movant 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 Cty. Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Leary v. 

Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000)(additional citation omitted). These factors 

are not prerequisites, but are factors that are to be balanced against each 

other. Id. (citations omitted).

Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to show any of these requirements for 

temporary injunctive relief. Plaintiff fails to allege that any of the named Defendants have 

taken any action against him. Ordinarily, the Court will not enjoin non-parties, and will not 

issue injunctive relief that is entirely unrelated to the Plaintiff’s underlying claim. Sidiq v. 

Case: 1:17-cv-00756-TSB-SKB Doc #: 18 Filed: 07/02/18 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 110
3

Champion, 2006 WL 1275403 at *2 (W.D. Mich., May 8, 2006) (citing De Beers Consol. 

Mines Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). Moreover, when an injunction is 

sought by an inmate against state prison officials, the Sixth Circuit has noted that findings 

of fact in support of any granted relief are “especially critical” since such an order would 

necessarily intrude “significantly into the prerogatives of state correctional 

officials.” See Glover v. Johnson, 855 F.2d 277, 284 (6th Cir. 1988); Kendrick v. 

Bland, 740 F.2d 432, 438, n. 3 (6th Cir. 1984) (“[W]here state penal institutions are 

involved, federal courts have a further reason for deference to the appropriate prison 

authorities”)(internal quotation and citation omitted). In addition, an inmate has no 

constitutionally protected right to a transfer or to be assigned to a particular prison. Olim 

v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983). 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons stated, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff’s motion for a 

temporary restraining order or for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 15) be DENIED.

/s Stephanie K. Bowman 

Stephanie K. Bowman

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:17-cv-00756-TSB-SKB Doc #: 18 Filed: 07/02/18 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 111
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

RAVON L. JETER, SR., Case No. 1:17-cv-756

Plaintiff, Barrett, J.

Bowman, M.J.

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 

REHABILITATION AND 

CORRECTION, et al.,

Defendants.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written 

objections to this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS

of the filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely 

motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) 

of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support 

of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN 

(14) DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections 

in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Case: 1:17-cv-00756-TSB-SKB Doc #: 18 Filed: 07/02/18 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 112