Milgrim v. Clarke et al, No. 7:2018cv00048 - Document 80 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 5/31/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' : OFFICE u.s.DlsK.cOuRT . AT DANVILLE,VA FILED IN TH E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIR GINIA R O A N O K E D IW SIO N AkY 3 1 2219 ZULI AG DLG CL uv:>(K DEPUTY CLER W ILLIA M F.M IL G RIM ,JR ., Plaintiff, CA SE N O .7:18CV 00048 M EM O R AN D UM O PIN IO N HAROLD CLARKE,ZI AL , By: H on.Jackson L.K iser Senior U nited StatesD istrictJudge D efendants. Thisprisonercivilrightsactionunder42U.S.C.j 1983isbeforemeonamotionfrom the proK plaintiff,W illinm F.M ilgrim,Jr.,thatistitledçtM otionforProtectiveOrder,''EECFNo.775. Thismotion,which Iconstrueasoneseeldnginterlocutoryinjtmctiverelief,mustbedenied. Toobtainapreliminaryinjunction,aplaintiffmustestablishthat:(1)heislikelytosucceed onthemerits;(2)heislikelytosufferirreparableharm intheabsenceofpreliminaryrelief;(3)the balanceofequitiestipsinhisfavor;and(4)aninjunctionisinthepublicinterest.W interv.Natural Res.Def.Council,555 U.S.7,20 (2008). Critically,each ofthese fotlrrequirementsmustbe satisfied. Id. Thus,a plaintiffmustm ake aIGclear''showing thatheislikely to sufferirreparable harm absentrelief. Id. M ilgrim 'scom plaint,filed in February of2018,allegesthatthedefendantprison officials . were deliberately indifferentto his seriousm edicalneeds in 2016 and 2017,interfered with his ability to litigate a habeas corpuspetition,and retaliated againsthim by transferring ltim to a Milgrim v. Clarke et al Doc. 80 differentprison facility in 2016. He also complainsthatthe Prison Litigation Reform Act is Dockets.Justia.com tmconstitutional. Thedefendantshavefiled amotion forsllmmaryjudgment,and M ilgrim has responded.l In thepresentm otion,M ilgrim assertsthatin M arch of2019, 'hepleaded guilty to aprison disciplinary charge and,in retaliation for this lawsuit,officials im posed m ore penalties than perm ' itted bytheprison regulations. Theplaintiffapparently seeksacourtorderdirecting officials toremovetheextrapenalties,whichwere::25daysinthehole,''lossofhisprisonjobandincome, rem ovalfrom the tGveteran's''pod,and a threatthathe would be transferred to anotherprison. (M ot.1EECFNo.771.) Icnnnotfind thattherequested interlocutory injlmctivereliefiswarranted in thiscase. First,M ilgrim 's allegation thatthesepenaltieswere imposed because ofthis lawsuitare m erely conclusory,and thushefailsto dem onstratealikelihoodofsuccesson themeritsofhisretaliation c1aim.2 SeeAdnmsv.Rice,40F.3d72,74(4thCir.1994)(sllmmarilydismissingretaliationclaim as insufficient because it consisted of m erely conclusory allegations and no facts to show retaliatory motivation). Second,M ilgrim fails to demonstrate thatthe penalties ofwhich he complains qualify as irreparable hann. Third and fourth,l cnnnotfind thatthe balance ofthr equitiestipsin M ilgdm 'sfavor,orthatpublic interestwould be served by courtinterference in theseintem alprisonproceedings.Accordingly,M ilgrim failstomaketheshowingsrequiredtmder W inter,and Iwilldeny hismotion accordingly.An appropriateorderwillenterthisday. 1 Iwilladdressthe defendants'm otion in aseparate opinion and order. 2 Forthe same reason,Ialso decline to construe M ilgrim 'ssubm ission as a motion to am end the com plaint. 2 TheClerk isdirected to send copiesofthismem orandtlm opinion andaccompanyingorder to plaintiffand to colm selofrecord fordefendants. ENTERED thisY l dayofMay,2019. E OR UNITED TATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
