McClain v. Strada et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
JOHNNY EUGENE McCLAIN 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 3:25-cv-00557
)
COMMISSIONER FRANK STRADA et al. 	)
TO: 	Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., United States District Judge
R E P O R T 	A N D 	R E C O M E N D A T I O N
This pro se, prisoner civil right action has been referred to the Magistrate Judge for
pretrial proceedings. See Memorandum Opinion and Order entered July 15, 2025 (Docket Entry
No. 34). 	Presently pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive
relief (Docket Entry Nos. 91 and 96). For the reasons set out below, the undersigned respectfully
recommends that the motions be DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Johnny Eugene McClain (“Plaintiff”), is a prisoner of the Tennessee Department of
Correction (“TDOC”) currently confined at the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center (“TTCC”)
in Hartsville, Tennessee, a facility operated by CoreCivic. On May 15, 2025, he paid the filing
fee and filed this pro se lawsuit. 	See Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1). 	Plaintiff seeks relief
based on allegations that his constitution rights were violated in 2024 and 2025 at the TTCC.
Specifically, he alleges that he was involved in a violent altercation with another inmate on
August 21, 2024, suffering injuries that included a “stab wound” to his eye. 	He contends that
two correctional officers did not intervene to prevent or stop the attack and that he was denied
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 128 Filed 07/24/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

2
medical care for over eleven hours after the attack. Plaintiff further alleges that he was retaliated
against after filing grievances about the matter when correctional officers physically assaulted
him on September 9, 2024, and sprayed his cell with pepper spray. In addition to these events,
Plaintiff also complained about a variety of other actions by prison officials and named
approximately 30 defendants.
By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered July 15, 2025 (Docker Entry No. 34), the
Court conducted an initial screening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915A(a) and
permitted the lawsuit to proceed against seven defendants in their individual capacities only
based on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims of failure to protect, inadequate medical care, and
excessive force and on a First Amendment retaliation claim. Id. at 4-7. The Court dismissed all
other defendants and claims. Id. at 7-9 and 12. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint in
order to identify previously unidentified defendants against whom claims were permitted to
proceed and to add a defendant. See Order entered December 2, 2025 (Docket Entry No. 68).
As the action currently stands, these are the Defendants against whom the lawsuit
proceeds - Emond Hill, Rickey Hill, Kyla Mitchell, Joshua Carter, Jeffrey Godfrey, Marvita
Hunter, Rita Bennma, and correctional officer f/n/u Spike.1 See Order entered December 2, 2025
(Docket Entry No. 68). 	Only Defendants Edmond Hill, Kyla Mitchell, and Joshua Carter have
appeared and are before the Court, having filed answers. 	See Docket Entry Nos. 47 and 73.2
Perfecting service of process upon the remaining Defendants has been on ongoing issue that has
been addressed by the Court. See Orders entered February 17, 2026 (Docket Entry No. 90), and
1 In Docket Entry No. 118, Plaintiff identifies the first names of Defendants Hunter and
Bennma.
2 An answer was inadvertently filed on behalf of Ricky Hill. See Docket Entry No. 53.
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 128 Filed 07/24/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

3
July 22, 2026 (Docket Entry No. 126). 	Plaintiff has been an active litigant in the case, having
filed a multitude of motions.3
II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
In his first motion, Plaintiff makes allegations pertaining to service of process and his
belief that prison employees and officials have been actively trying to prevent him from serving
process upon Defendants by lying and refusing to accept service of process. 	He further
complains about recent events that have occurred in 2026 that he views as mistreatment by
correctional officers. 	Plaintiff states that he “would like a injunction for mail [personnel] who
signed mail slip and Sgt. Richardson to be opposed [sic] so that can answer questions on this
serious matter and plaintiff prays this honorable courts [sic] for help in this matter since he has
no attorney and all his rights are being violated.” See Docket Entry No. 91 at 6. Attached to his
motion are proposed summonses for two TTCC administrative officials who are not defendants
in the case. See Docket Entry No. 91-1.
In his second motion, Plaintiff reasserts some of the allegations of his complaint, makes
additional 	allegations about 	recent events that 	that 	he views as mistreatment 	by prison
correctional officers, and makes allegations pertaining to proceedings before the parle board.
The exact nature of the preliminary injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks is unclear other than
requests that (1) the Court “assist him to stop” the alleged acts of retaliation, intimidation, mental
anguish and abuse, and excessive force and (2) the Court enter an order “stopping the abuse by
staff and intimidation of false charges.” See Docket Entry No. 96. Plaintiff further states that he
3 Two of Plaintiff’s prior motions were motions for preliminary injunctive relief that were
denied by Order entered January 16, 2026 (Docket Entry No. 81).
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 128 Filed 07/24/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

4
wants to refile charges related to the parole proceedings and attaches to his motion an “Offender
Attributes” printout. See Docket Entyr No. 96-1.
III. ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs requests for temporary restraining orders and
preliminary injunctions. 	A preliminary injunction is considered a preventive, prohibitory, or
protective measure taken pending resolution on the merits. 	See Clemons v. Board of Educ. of
Hillsboro, Ohio, 228 F.2d 853, 856 (6th Cir. 1956). 	Its purpose is not to remedy an alleged
wrong or to provide preemptive relief to a party but to “preserve the relative positions of the
parties until a trial on the merits can be held,” EOG Resources, Inc. v. Lucky Land Mgmt., LLC,
134 F.4th 868, 883 (6th Cir. 2025) (citing Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339, 345-46),
and is considered extraordinary relief. 	See Detroit Newspaper Publishers Ass’n v. Detroit
Typographical Union No. 18, Int’l Typographical Union, 471 F.2d 872, 876 (6th Cir. 1972). A
request for such relief should be granted only if the movant carries a heavy burden of proving
that the circumstances clearly demand it. Overstreet v. Lexington–Fayette Urban County Gov’t,
305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002).
In determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the court must consider whether
the movant has established: (1) a “strong” likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that he will
suffer irreparable injury absent injunctive relief; (3) that the balance of the equities favors the
movant because the issuance of an injunction would not cause substantial harm to others; and (4)
that the public interest would be served by the issuance of the injunction. Sisters for Life, Inc. v.
Louisville-Jefferson County, 56 F.4th 400, 403 (6th Cir. 2022); Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d
729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000). 	Whether to grant a preliminary injunction is within the discretion of
the district court. Tenn. Scrap Recyclers Ass'n v. Bredesen, 556 F.3d 442, 447 (6th Cir. 2009).
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 128 Filed 07/24/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

5
Here, denial of Plaintiff’s motions is an appropriate exercise of the Court’s discretion. As
an initial matter, the motions should be denied for the threshold reason that they are not
supported by an affidavit or declaration. Because the issuance of a preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary remedy, the proof required for a party to obtain a preliminary injunction is much
more stringent than the proof required to survive a summary judgment motion. Leary, 228 F.3d
at 739. Thus, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must present “more than ‘scant evidence’
to substantiate [its] allegations.” 	Patel v. AR Grp. Tennessee, LLC, 2020 WL 5849346, at *4
(M.D. Tenn. Oct. 1, 2020) (quoting Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted, 751 F.3d 403, 417 (6th
Cir. 2014)). An unsupported motion, such as Plaintiff’s two motions, must be denied.
Even if the motions were properly supported, the motions should nonetheless be denied.
First, the issues pertaining to problems with service of process have been addressed by the Court
through other orders and are procedural issues that are unrelated to the actual claims in the case.
Thus, they are not issues appropriate for resolution through a motion for preliminary injunctive
relief. See Doe v. Off. of Inspector Gen. (OIG), 2025 WL 2318623, at *5 (M.D.Tenn. Aug. 11,
2025) (Campbell, J.) (“the majority of the relief requested – acknowledgement of claims and
requests for discovery – is not an appropriate subject for a preliminary injunction.”). Likewise,
Plaintiff’s allegations pertaining to the parole board proceedings are issues unrelated to the
claims in this case. Second, Plaintiff does not direct his requests for preliminary injunctive relief
at an actual defendant. 	“In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, there must be a defendant
against whom the preliminary injunction would be appropriately enforceable.” 	Doe v. Rausch,
2025 WL 57711, at *5 (M.D.Tenn. Jan. 9, 2025). Further, Plaintiff may not seek an injunction
based on matters that are factually unrelated related to the claims made in his complaint. 	“[A]
party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 128 Filed 07/24/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

6
injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Colvin v.
Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 300 (6th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Devose v. Herrington,
42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)).
Finally, Plaintiff does not actually seek to preserve the status quo in this case prior to trial
but requests that the Court actively intervene on his behalf by overseeing aspects of his current
incarceration. 	The Court finds no basis supporting such extraordinary relief. 	This action was
only recently filed, and Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits is no greater than that of
Defendants at this point. 	Plaintiff has also not made a persuasive showing that he will suffer
irreparable harm if the requested injunctive relief is not granted. 	The balancing of harms
required by the third factor also does not weigh in favor of the requested relief, and Plaintiff has
not persuasively demonstrated that a public interest would be advanced by the requested relief as
is required for the fourth factor. 	National Hockey League Players Ass’n v. Plymouth Whalers
Hockey Club, 372 F.3d 712, 720 n.4 (6th Cir. 2003). 	There is a “public interest in leaving the
administration of state prisons to state prison administrators.” 	Rhinehart v. Scutt, 509 F.App'x
510, 516 (6th Cir. 2013).
Absent extraordinary and urgently compelling reasons, which have not been shown by
Plaintiff, the Court will not intervene in the day-to-day operations in a correctional facility. See
Glover v. Johnson, 855 F.2d 277, 284 (6th Cir. 1988) (setting forth various public policy
concerns relating to court intrusion into prison administrative matters and holding that a federal
court should not “attempt to administer any portion of a state correctional system program except
in the most compelling situations”); Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432, 438 (6th Cir. 1984) (noting
that federal restraint into intrusion of a state penal institution is counseled); Griffin v. Berghuis,
563 F.App’x 411, 417-18 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 82 (1987))
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 128 Filed 07/24/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>

7
(decisions concerning the administration of prisons are vested in prison officials in the absence
of a constitutional violation, and any interference by the federal courts in that activity is
necessarily disruptive).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motions for
preliminary injunctive relief (Docket Entry Nos. 91 and 96) be DENIED.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14)
days of service of this Report and Recommendation and must state with particularity the specific
portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. See Rule 72(b)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 72.02(a). Three (3) additional days are
added to this time for service by mail. See Rule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Service is complete upon mailing. See Rule 5(b)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Failure to file written objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to
appeal the District Court's Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. 	See Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Any response
to the objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of objections. See Federal
Rule 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.02(b).
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
BARBARA D. HOLMES
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 128 Filed 07/24/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>