1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29

L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRUNO CHOINIERE, No. 08-14853

Plaintiff, District Judge Thomas L. Ludington

v. Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

S. CITCHEN, ET.AL.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a pro se prison inmate in the custody of the Federal Correctional

Institution in Milan, Michigan, has filed a self-styled and fanciful “Motion for Issuance of

a Court Official Notice to Defendants” [Docket #8]. Because the Plaintiff seeks

injunctive relief, I must proceed by Report and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B).

I. BACKGROUND

This is a Bivens1

 action, in which Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of his

conditions of confinement while a federal prison inmate. In the present motion, he

expresses concern and fear that Bureau of Prisons (BOP) personnel “may further attempt

to cause plaintiff to be subjected to undue adverse actions.” He asks this Court to

“officially notify the defendants in this case at bar, that any adverse action, such as

causing his transfer to another institution, including transits; putting him into segregation;

depriving him of his phone privileges; or any other action that would affect his freedom

1:08-cv-14853-TLL-RSW Doc # 32 Filed 07/02/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 525
-2-

within the general population” may “cause plaintiff’s deprivation of his constitutional and

civil rights and may infringe in plaintiff’s right to be left alone.” Plaintiff also asks that

the Defendants be enjoined from causing “any prejudice to plaintiff, in any shape and

form whatsoever.”

II. DISCUSSION

First, there is no legal basis for Plaintiff’s request that this Court issue some kind

of “official notice” or warning to the Defendants that some future action might violate his

constitutional rights, and not surprisingly, Plaintiff has cited no basis for that request. If

some future condition of Plaintiff’s confinement amounts to a constitutional violation,

Plaintiff’s remedy is, first, through the BOP’s grievance process, and then by filing a

lawsuit.

As to Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief, the law is clear that injunctive relief

should not issue where the claimed irreparable damage is speculative or may never occur. 

Sharp v. Cureton, 319 F.3d 259, 272 (6th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has done nothing more than

offer his belief that at some unspecified time in the future, the Defendants might take

some action that may infringe on some constitutional right.

Moreover, Plaintiff is asking this Court to enjoin any future disciplinary action the

BOP might take. However, Departments of Corrections are accorded considerable

latitude in the administration of prisons. In Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor

Union, 433 U.S. 119, 227, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 53 L.Ed.2d 629 (1977), the Supreme Court

discussed the balancing of constitutional rights afforded prisoners against the deference

that prison officials must be given in the efficient management of prisons: “Because the

realities of running a penal institution are complex and difficult, we have also recognized

the wide-ranging deference to be accorded the decisions of prison administrators.” By

1:08-cv-14853-TLL-RSW Doc # 32 Filed 07/02/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 526
-3-

granting injunctive relief in this case, the Court would be in the untenable position of

second-guessing and preempting the enforcement of the BOP’s legitimate prison policies.

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, “which should be granted

only if the movant carries his or her burden of proving that the circumstances clearly

demand it.” Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 305 F.3d 566,

573 (6th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff has made no such showing in this case.

III. CONCLUSION

I therefore recommend that Plaintiff’s motion [Docket #8] be DENIED.

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within ten (10)

days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich.

LR 72.1(d)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right

of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Howard

v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947

(6th Cir. 1981). Filing of objections which raise some issues but fail to raise others with

specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and

Recommendation. Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); and Smith v.

Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to

E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate

Judge.

Within ten (10) days of service of any objecting party’s timely filed objections, the

opposing party may file a response. The response shall be not more than twenty (20)

pages in length unless by motion and order such page limit is extended by the court. 

1:08-cv-14853-TLL-RSW Doc # 32 Filed 07/02/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 527
-4-

The response shall address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue

contained within the objections.

S/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: July 2, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served on the attorneys

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on July 2, 2009.

s/Susan Jefferson 

Case Manager

1:08-cv-14853-TLL-RSW Doc # 32 Filed 07/02/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 528