Bacon v. Wood et al, No. 7:2013cv00565 - Document 55 (W.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER denying 54 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 10/22/2014. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bacon v. Wood et al Doc. 55 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION ADRIAN NATHANIEL BACON, Plaintiff, v. C/O MICHAEL WOOD, ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 7:13CV00565 OPINION AND ORDER By: James P. Jones United States District Judge Adrian Nathanial Bacon, Pro Se Plaintiff. Plaintiff Adrian Nathanial Bacon has filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 54), seeking a transfer away from Red Onion State Prison. He states that on October 15, 2014, officials verbally threatened that he would remain in segregation if he pursued his pending lawsuits and told him to watch what he eat[s]. Because the allegations in Bacon s current motion concern nonparties and events unrelated to the claims in this action, the motion is improperly filed in this case. Moreover, Bacon offers no factual basis for the extraordinary interlocutory relief he seeks.1 1 Temporary restraining orders are issued only rarely, when the movant proves that he will suffer injury if relief is not granted before the adverse party could be notified and have opportunity to respond. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Bacon states that because of officers comments on October 15, he will not eat any prison meals and fears for his life. Such speculative fears do not provide a factual basis for finding that the requested interlocutory relief should issue before prison officials have an opportunity to respond to Bacon s allegations. Moreover, Bacon clearly has not yet had time to exhaust Dockets.Justia.com For the stated reasons, it is ORDERED that Bacon s motion is DENIED. ENTER: October 22, 2014 /s/ James P. Jones United States District Judge administrative remedies as to these claims and cannot bring a lawsuit in federal court until he does so. See 42 U.S.C. ยง 1997e(a). -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
