Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MICHAEL SHANE TOWNSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv135-SPM/WCS

J. SPEIGHTS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed an

amended civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 9. Plaintiff has also filed a

motion entitled "quick relief sought for fear of irreparable harm." Doc. 10. That motion

seeks an order sending Plaintiff "to a protective manage[ment] unit until this case is

resolved" of transferring Plaintiff to another institution. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks

transfer to Columbia Correctional Institution or Martin Correctional Institution. Id. A few

days later, Plaintiff filed a "request for restraining order." Doc. 11. That motion advises

he was under "protective management status awaiting Tallahassee's decision to

approve or deny [his] request for protection." Id. Plaintiff states that on that date, June
Page 2 of 6

1, 2010, his request was denied again. Plaintiff fears he will be placed back in open

population, but states he can't live there because his life is in danger. Id. Plaintiff wants

a restraining order against the Defendants who have denied him protection, and an

order directing his transfer off that compound. Doc. 11.

Both of the motions lack any statement of facts showing why Plaintiff believes his

life is in danger, why he fears physical attack, from whom he fears any attack, or any

facts to show the basis for his fear. The motions themselves are insufficient to show

that Plaintiff needs a transfer or protective custody. 

I have simultaneously reviewed Plaintiff's amended complaint, doc. 9, which

brings claims against seven Defendants. Plaintiff alleges he was approached by four

inmates, known gang members, who threatened Plaintiff, believing he was an informant. 

Id., at 6. One inmate punched Plaintiff in the face, and he had to receive medical

treatment. Id. Plaintiff then asked for protection, and was "placed in administrative

confinement pending protection." Id. Plaintiff's amended complaint indicates his

request was denied by the Institution Classification Team (I.C.T.) which consisted of

Defendants Landrum, Prideon, and Andrews, because Plaintiff could not give the

names of inmates, only nicknames. Plaintiff states, however, that he also gave bunk

numbers and housing locations. Id., at 6-7. Plaintiff appealed the denial of his request,

which was also denied.

When Plaintiff was released back to open population, he was sent back to his

previous dormitory. Id., at 7. Another inmate approached him and threatened Plaintiff

for being an informant. Plaintiff returned to his dorm and would not go back outside. 

The next day, Plaintiff approached an officer requesting protective custody and saying

Case No. 4:10cv135-SPM/WCS
Page 3 of 6

he was in fear for his life. Plaintiff provided the names of three inmates who threatened

him, and they were interviewed and statements were obtained. Id., at 7-8. Plaintiff had

another meeting with a second I.C.T. team (consisting of Defendants Speights,

Andrews, and Gilliam), who again denied his request for protective custody. Id., at 8. 

Plaintiff appealed that denial as well. Id. Plaintiff contends all seven named Defendants

violated his Eighth Amendment rights in denying him protection, and as relief, Plaintiff

wants to be transferred "to another state" or, apparently, to be placed in a protective

management unit. Id., at 13. Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages for "pain and

suffering, mental and physical anguish." Id. 

The Eighth Amendment "imposes upon prison officials the duty to 'provide

humane conditions of confinement.' " Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S. Ct.

1970, 1976, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994). Included within the Amendment's requirements

is that prison officials must "take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the

inmates." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832, 114 S. Ct. at 1976, quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468

U.S. 517, 526- 527, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 3200, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984). In guaranteeing

their safety, officials must "protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other

prisoners." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833, 114 S. Ct. at 1976-1977, citing Cortes-Quinones

v. Jimenez-Nettleship, 842 F.2d 556, 558 (1st Cir.), cert. denied 488 U.S. 823 (1988). 

To prevail on an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, an inmate must make two

showings. First, he must demonstrate that he is "incarcerated under conditions posing

a substantial risk of serious harm."1 Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 114 S. Ct. at 1977, citing

1

 The Court did not address the question of “[a]t what point a risk of inmate

assault becomes sufficiently substantial for Eighth Amendment purposes.” 511 U.S. at

834, n.3, 114 S. Ct. at 1977, n.3.

Case No. 4:10cv135-SPM/WCS
Page 4 of 6

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35, 113 S. Ct. 2475, 2481, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1993). 

Second, he must show that the defendant prison official had a "culpable state of mind"

(deliberate indifference) in that he knew of and disregarded "an excessive risk to inmate

health or safety." 511 U.S. at 834, 837, 114 S. Ct. at 1977, 1979. Construed liberally,

Plaintiff's amended complaint demonstrates those requirements and state a claim. 

Service should be directed and Defendants ordered to respond. 

Although I find the amended complaint to be viable, that decision does not

resolve the issue of Plaintiff's motions, docs. 10 and 11. Granting or denying a

preliminary injunction is a decision within the discretion of the district court. Carillon

Importers, Ltd. v. Frank Pesce Intern. Group Ltd., 112 F.3d 1125, 1126 (11th Cir. 1997),

citing United States v. Lambert, 695 F.2d 536, 539 (11th Cir. 1983). Guiding this

discretion is the required finding that plaintiff has established: 

(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 

(2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted; 

(3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiffs outweighs the harm an

injunction may cause the defendant; and 

(4) that granting the injunction would not disserve the public interest. 

Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000); Carillon Importers, Ltd., 112

F.3d at 1126; United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1519 (11th Cir. 1983). 

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy and should not be

granted unless the movant "clearly carries the burden of persuasion" of all four

prerequisites, which is always upon the plaintiff. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d at 1519,

citing Canal Auth. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1974).

Case No. 4:10cv135-SPM/WCS
Page 5 of 6

Here, it cannot be said that Plaintiff does not face a likelihood of success, but it is

questionable whether that likelihood is substantial or not. Plaintiff will be given the

benefit of the doubt on this element. Plaintiff's second element does not weigh in

Plaintiff's favor because the motions seeking injunctive relief do not explain the injury,

the nature of the threat, or any real basis for the motion. 

Review of the substance of the complaint is a separate consideration from the

review of the substance of the motions. It took reading the amended complaint to

determine the facts as the motions are wholly insufficient on their face. There are no

supporting facts within the motions and, thus, the motions do not make the

demonstration needed. Furthermore, Plaintiff's motions do not show that he cannot be

protected from harm from other inmates in his current custody status. Because

Plaintiff's motion are both insufficient to show that injunctive relief is needed at this point

in the proceedings, the motions should be denied. 

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion

for "quick relief," doc. 10, and motion for temporary restraining order, doc. 11, be

DENIED and this case REMANDED for further proceedings. 

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on July 7, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Case No. 4:10cv135-SPM/WCS
Page 6 of 6

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:10cv135-SPM/WCS