UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL SLOCUM, Case No. 1:18-cv-423

Plaintiff, Cole, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.

SGT. S. BEAR, et al., REPORT AND

 Defendants. RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for permanent transfer from the 

Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) (Doc. 73).

Plaintiff’s motion alleges that since his return to SOCF from the Ohio State Penitentiary, 

he has been threatened, harassed, and disrespected, and he feels his life “could be threatened and 

put in danger.” (Doc. 73 at 2). Plaintiff seek an injunction ordering his transfer to a different 

prison. (Id.). The Court construes plaintiff’s motion as one seeking a preliminary injunction. 

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

following factors:

1. Whether the party seeking the injunction has shown a “strong” likelihood of 

success on the merits;

2. Whether the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm absent the 

injunction;

3. Whether an injunction will cause others to suffer substantial harm; and

4. Whether the public interest would be served by a preliminary injunction.

Liberty Coins, LLC v. Goodman, 748 F.3d 682, 689-90 (6th Cir. 2014); Overstreet v. LexingtonFayette Urban Cty. Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Leary v. Daeschner, 228 

F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000)). The four factors are not prerequisites but must be balanced as 

part of a decision to grant or deny injunctive relief. In re DeLorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d 1223, 

1229 (6th Cir. 1985). “[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 

Case: 1:18-cv-00423-DRC-KLL Doc #: 78 Filed: 04/28/20 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 432
2

are dispositive of the issue.” Jones v. City of Monroe, 341 F.3d 474, 476 (6th Cir. 2003), 

abrogated on other gds. by Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338, 357 (6th Cir. 2015). 

“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a trial on the 

merits.” S. Glazer’s Distributors of Ohio, LLC v. Great Lakes Brewing Co., 860 F.3d 844, 848-

49 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)). When a 

prisoner requests an order enjoining a state prison official, the Court must “proceed with caution 

and due deference to the unique nature of the prison setting.” White v. Corr. Med. Servs., No. 

1:08-cv-277, 2009 WL 529082, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 2, 2009) (citing Kendrick v. Bland, 740 

F.2d 432, 438 n. 3 (6th Cir. 1984); Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271, 273 (6th Cir. 1995)). In deciding 

if a preliminary injunction is warranted, the Court must “weigh carefully the interests on both 

sides.” Lang v. Thompson, No. 5:10-cv-379-HRW, 2010 WL 4962933, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 30, 

2010) (citing Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 931 (1975)). A preliminary injunction is 

an extraordinary remedy that should only be granted “upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is 

entitled to such relief.” S. Glazer’s Distributors of Ohio, LLC, 860 F.3d at 849 (quoting Winter 

v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)); see also Overstreet, 305 F.3d at 573.

Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction in this case. 

Plaintiff has made no attempt to apply the above factors to his situation. His conclusory 

allegations of vague threats and harassment are insufficient to warrant an injunction. He has not 

established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his constitutional claims or that he 

will suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction. In the event plaintiff succeeds on 

the merits of his claims, equitable relief is available to correct any ongoing constitutional harms 

plaintiff alleges.

Case: 1:18-cv-00423-DRC-KLL Doc #: 78 Filed: 04/28/20 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 433
3

A preliminary injunction is also not warranted in this case because the purpose of a 

preliminary injunction -- to preserve the status quo until a trial on the merits can be held, see

Southern Milk Sales, Inc. v. Martin, 924 F.2d 98, 102 (6th Cir. 1991) -- would not be served. 

The present status quo in this case is, according to plaintiff, that he has suffered numerous 

violations of his constitutional rights. The remedy plaintiff presently seeks is more than an 

injunction maintaining the status quo; he seeks an Order from this Court requiring defendants to 

affirmatively correct constitutional deficiencies yet to be proven. Such affirmative relief is 

generally beyond the scope and purpose of preliminary injunctive relief. See id.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 

injunction/temporary restraining order be DENIED.

Date: 

Karen L. Litkovitz

United States Magistrate Judge

4/28/2020

Case: 1:18-cv-00423-DRC-KLL Doc #: 78 Filed: 04/28/20 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 434
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL SLOCUM, Case No. 1:18-cv-423

Plaintiff, Cole, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.

SGT. S. BEAR, et al., 

Defendants.

NOTICE 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of 

the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the 

proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on 

timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected 

to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report 

and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral 

hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such 

portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the 

assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections 

WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. 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: 1:18-cv-00423-DRC-KLL Doc #: 78 Filed: 04/28/20 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 435