UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

EMANUEL SHOULDERS, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-703 

Plaintiff, Barrett, J. 

 Bowman, M.J 

vs. 

Z. CHERRYHOLMES, et al., 

 Defendants. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This civil rights action is now before the Court on Plaintiff's pro se motion for 

injunctive relief (Doc. 10). Plaintiff's motion appears to seek a Court Order to prohibit 

defendants from using mace on non-threatening inmates. Plaintiff further asks the Court 

to remove Defendant Cherryholmes from his unit. Plaintiff’s requests are not well-taken. 

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy designed to preserve the 

relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.” Tenn. Scrap 

Recyclers Ass'n v. Bredesen, 556 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir.2009) (emphasis added). An 

injunction decree should not be granted routinely. Weinberger v. Romero–Barcelo, 456 

U.S. 305, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). “The decision to grant or deny a 

preliminary injunction is within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court.” Mt. Clemens 

v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 917 F.2d 908, 914 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting Tyson Foods, Inc. 

v. McReynolds, 865 F.2d 99, 101 (6th Cir.1989)). 

In exercising its discretion with respect to a motion for a preliminary injunction, a 

district court must give consideration to four factors: (1) whether the movant has a strong 

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury 

without the injunction; (3) whether issuance of the injunction would cause substantial 

Case: 1:17-cv-00703-MRB-SKB Doc #: 24 Filed: 07/02/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 264
2

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

injunction. Rock & Roll Hall of Fame & Museum, Inc. v. Gentile Prods., 134 F.3d 749, 753 

(6th Cir.1998). In the Sixth Circuit, these four factors are to be balanced and are not 

prerequisites that must be met. Thus, a district court is not required to make specific 

findings concerning each of the four factors used in determining a motion for preliminary 

injunction if fewer factors are dispositive of the issue. Donaldson v. United States, 86 F. 

App'x 902, 903 (6th Cir.2004). 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish the necessary elements for injunctive relief. 

The record fails to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff has made no 

attempt to support his claims with any factual evidence. Likewise, he has failed to 

establish that he will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief. Again, he fails to 

support his conclusory allegations of irreparable harm with factual evidence. 

Notably, a movant's burden is even more difficult to satisfy where, as here, a prison 

inmate seeks an injunction to obtain affirmative relief beyond maintenance of the status 

quo. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2) (“In any civil action with respect to prison conditions ... 

[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary 

to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive 

means necessary to correct that harm.”); Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 

S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981) (“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to 

preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.”). Thus, 

purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent irreparable injury and to preserve the 

Court's ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits (see United Food & 

Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099 v. Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority, 

Case: 1:17-cv-00703-MRB-SKB Doc #: 24 Filed: 07/02/18 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 265
3

163 F.3d 341, 348 (6th Cir.1998). Plaintiff has failed to allege any actual or imminent 

injury. To demonstrate irreparable harm, a plaintiff must show “actual and imminent” 

harm rather than harm that is speculative or unsubstantiated.” Abney v. Amgen, Inc., 443 

F.3d 540, 552 (6th Cir.2006). 

In light of the foregoing and in consideration of the relevant factors, the 

undersigned concludes that Plaintiff's motion lacks merit and is not well-taken. It is 

therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 10) be DENIED. 

 

s/Stephanie K. Bowman 

 Stephanie K. Bowman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 1:17-cv-00703-MRB-SKB Doc #: 24 Filed: 07/02/18 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 266
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

EMANUEL SHOULDERS, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-703 

Plaintiff, Barrett, J. 

 Bowman, M.J 

vs. 

Z. CHERRYHOLMES, et al., 

 Defendants. 

NOTICE

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

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

being served with a copy thereof. 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 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-00703-MRB-SKB Doc #: 24 Filed: 07/02/18 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 267