Feaster v. Chambers-Smith et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
TERRANCE J. FEASTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ANNETTE CHAMBERS-SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:22-cv-453
District Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1
This case is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s proposed “Order to Show Cause for a
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining” (Doc. #53), Plaintiff’s “Declaration and
Memorandum in Support to Order for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining” (Doc.
#54), Plaintiff’s Exhibits in Support (Doc. #s 59-1 – 59-9), Defendants’ Response in Opposition
(Doc. #65), Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. #72), Plaintiff’s Exhibits in Support of his Reply (Doc. #73).
I. 	BACKGROUND
On January 25, 2023, pro se Plaintiff commenced this action by filing claims against five
Defendants, 	in 	their 	individual 	capacities, 	related 	to 	his 	incarceration 	at 	Southern 	Ohio
Correctional Facility (“SOCF”). (Doc. #4). Following the Court’s initial review of his Complaint,
Plaintiff’s remaining claims include: 1) failure to protect from harm against Defendant Greg
Holdren, the SOCF safety and health coordinator; 2) inadequate medical treatment or deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs against Defendant David Conley, a nurse practitioner at
SOCF; and 3) retaliation against Defendant Linnea Mahlman, an inspector at SOCF. (Doc. #13).
1 Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation.
Case: 1:22-cv-00453-SJD-PBS Doc #: 99 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
In November 2024, Plaintiff filed what appears to be a proposed “Order to Show Cause for
a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining” (Doc. #53). 	He also filed a “Declaration
and Memorandum in Support to Order for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining”
(Doc. #54). 	Plaintiff did not, however, file a motion requesting a preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order.
At the end of December 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file exhibits supporting
his request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. (Doc. #59) (citing Doc.
#s 53, 54). 	In the motion, he indicates that he requests a preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order. 	The Court granted Plaintiff’s request for leave to file exhibits supporting his
request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. (Doc. #88)
In January 2025, Defendants filed their Response in Opposition with supporting exhibits
(Doc. #65). In February 2025, Plaintiff filed his Reply (Doc. #72) and supporting exhibits (Doc.
#73). Plaintiff also filed a “Notice of Verification” related to his Complaint, attached exhibits, and
his filings related to his request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Doc.
#s 53, 54, and 59). (Doc. #74).
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to a lawsuit to seek
injunctive relief if he believes that he will suffer irreparable harm or injury while the suit is
pending. 	Temporary restraining orders (TRO) and preliminary injunctions are extraordinary
remedies “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 Co. Gov’t, 305 F.3d
566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002); PUI Audio Inc. v. Van Den Broek, No. 3:21-cv-284, 2021 WL 4905461,
at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2021); Kendall Holdings, Ltd. v. Eden Cryogenics LLC, 630 F. Supp. 2d
Case: 1:22-cv-00453-SJD-PBS Doc #: 99 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
853, 860 (S.D. Ohio 2008) (A TRO “should only be granted if the movant can clearly show the
need for one.”).
In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, this Court must balance the
following factors:
1. 	Whether the party seeking the injunction has shown a “strong”
likelihood of success on the merits;
2. 	Whether the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable
harm absent the injunction;
3. 	Whether an injunction will cause others to suffer substantial
harm; and
4. 	Whether the public interest would be served by a preliminary
injunction.
Leary, 228 F.3d at 736; Overstreet, 305 F.3d at 573. 	The four factors are not prerequisites but
must be balanced as part of a decision to grant or deny injunctive relief. Leary, 228 F.3d at 736.
Further, “a district court is not required to make specific findings concerning each of the four
factors used in determining a motion for preliminary injunction if fewer factors are dispositive of
the issue.” Jones v. City of Monroe, 341 F.3d 474, 476 (6th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds
by Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338, 357 (6th Cir. 2015).
“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a trial on the
merits.” S. Glazer’s Distributors of Ohio, LLC v. Great Lakes Brewing Co., 860 F.3d 844, 848-
49 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)). When a prisoner
requests an order enjoining a state prison official, the Court must “proceed with caution and due
deference to the unique nature of the prison setting.” White v. Corr. Med. Servs., No. 1:08-cv-277,
2009 WL 529082, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 2, 2009) (citing Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432, 438
n. 3 (6th Cir. 1984); Ward v. Dyke, 58 F.3d 271, 273 (6th Cir. 1995)). In deciding if a preliminary
injunction is warranted, the Court must “weigh carefully the interests on both sides.” Lang v.
Thompson, No. 5:10-cv-379-HRW, 2010 WL 4962933, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 30, 2010) (citing
Case: 1:22-cv-00453-SJD-PBS Doc #: 99 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 3 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 931 (1975)). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary
remedy that should only be granted “upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such
relief.” S. Glazer's Distributors of Ohio, LLC, 860 F.3d at 849 (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)); see also Overstreet, 305 F.3d at 573.
III. 	DISCUSSION
In his proposed order, Plaintiff appears to request relief related to non-parties including
SOCF Warden Cynthia Davis, Warden Assistant Brandi Trelka, Unit Management Chief Jeremy
Oppy, 	Deputy 	Warden 	of 	Special 	Services 	Nicole 	Joseph, 	SOCF/Warden’s 	Designee 	of
Institutional Inspector Kevin Parker, Assistant A. Hockett, Investigator Fred Denny, Mailroom
Supervisor/Officers Jason Taylor and J. Daulton, Unit Manager Brian Nolan, SOCF Officers Brian
Barney, A. Cooper, M. Dillow, C. Evans, M. Evans, and G. Lawson, Captain H. Bell, Viapath
Technologies, and agent Ethel Ewing, as well as “Officers, agents, and all persons acting in concert
or participation with them.” (Doc. #53, PageID #s 313-15). Plaintiff asks that they be:
restrained from Racist, Discriminatory, and Retaliatory practices,
Failing to provide legal services, withholding, interfering, and
disrupting 	Plaintiff’s 	Mail 	without 	viable 	cause, 	denying,
discarding, and deleting Plaintiff’s kites and grievances e-filed,
failing to provide copies of grievances/kites and any evidentiary
Material 	subject 	to 	Release, 	violating 	Plaintiff’s 	civil 	rights,
violating Policies, Public Law, and statutes proscribed by the
constitution of the United States, Ohio Administrative Code, Ohio
Revised 	Code, 	and 	Ohio 	[D]epartment 	of 	Rehabilitation 	and
Corrections[’] 	policies, 	Viapath 	tech./agents 	from 	breaching
contractual/user agreements ….
Id. at 315.
In Plaintiff’s Declaration and Memorandum, he asserts that there are several problems at
SOCF. 	First, Plaintiff contends the individuals named in his proposed order, all of whom are
employees or former employees of SOCF, “have and are still continuing to train, practice,
participate, 	and 	or 	act 	utilizing 	Racist 	and 	discriminatory 	practices, 	Retaliation 	tactics,
Case: 1:22-cv-00453-SJD-PBS Doc #: 99 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 4 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
Intentionally and sexually harassing tactics, blatantly and brutally assaulting the plaintiff and other
prisoners at [SOCF] by use of unreported Force, Specifically with Physical or chemical Forms.”
(Doc. #54, PageID #318). 	Second, Plaintiff alleges the SOCF Warden “has allowed toxic
substances to enter the prison causing extreme security concerns as well as medical emergencies
….” Id. at 319. Third, according to Plaintiff, the SOCF Warden and designated safety and health
coordinator “have allowed the already deplorable conditions … to continue to deteriorate further.”
Id. Fourth, Plaintiff asserts that the Warden, her administration, and Viapath Technologies agent
Ethel Ewing “utilize the contracted vendor to continue antagonizing and provoking the prisoners
and denying prisoners contractually/user agreed upon services.” Id. Fifth, Plaintiff alleges, “the
Medical and legal departments under the supervision of DWSS Nicole Joseph is non existent and
provides below bare minimum services ….” Id. at 320. Finally, according to Plaintiff, “Mailroom
Operations via Jason Taylor has continued to delay and discard or interrupt mail services.” 	Id.
Plaintiff requests “relief in the form of a prison transfer and T.R.O to deter these actors from the
blatant retaliation, racism, and malicious acts ….” Id. at 323.
In support of his request, Plaintiff attached (1) his May 19, 2024 informal complaint
regarding Corrections Officers Mr. and Mrs. Evans and Sergeant Evans and his May 25, 2025
informal complaint regarding legal mail (Doc. #59-2); (2) two grievance summaries (Doc. #59-3);
(3) Plaintiff’s requests for kite/grievance printouts/ICR and for notification of grievances (Doc.
#59-4); (4) a conduct report and hearing officer’s report regarding an incident on May 11, 2024
(Doc. #s 59-5 and 59-6); (5) a conduct report, RIB disposition, Warden’s decision, and
classification appeals regarding an incident on June 14, 2024 (Doc. #59-7); (6) Declaration of
Abdul Lakes (Doc. #59-8); and (7) Plaintiff’s letter to Hearcel Craig and the response (Doc. #59-
9).
Case: 1:22-cv-00453-SJD-PBS Doc #: 99 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 5 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
order. (Doc. #65). Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s request bears no relation to the subject matter
of his complaint and seeks to control the actions of non-parties. Id. at 455. Moreover, Defendants
contend that Plaintiff has offered no evidence indicating he has a strong likelihood of success on
the merits and Plaintiff will suffer no injury absent the injunction. 	Id. at 456. 	According to
Defendants, “He asks for library services he already has, and air and cell cleanliness conditions he
is already experiencing. 	If Plaintiff violates prison disciplinary policies, he is held to the same
standard as every other inmate.” 	Id. 	In support of the Response, Defendants attached the
Declaration of Bobby Kingrey, SOCF’s Safety and Health Coordinator (Doc. #65-2) and the
Declaration of Nicole Joseph, SOCF’s Deputy Warden of Special Services (Doc. #65-1).
Additionally, Defendants included the conduct report regarding Plaintiff from May 11, 2024 (Doc.
#65-3) and the Use of Force Committee Report regarding a non-party spraying Plaintiff with OC
on October 24, 2024 (Doc. #65-4).
In his Reply, Plaintiff maintains that he has shown a strong likelihood of success on the
merits and that he will suffer an irreparable injury without an injunction. (Doc. #72, PageID #498).
In support, Plaintiff points to the exhibits he submitted previously (Doc. #59) as well as new
exhibits (Doc. #73) that he filed with his Reply.
“‘[A] party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship
between the 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) (quoting Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470,
471 (8th Cir. 1994)). “This is because ‘[t]he purpose of interim equitable relief is to protect the
movant, during the pendency of the action, from being harmed or further harmed in the manner in
which the movant contends [he] was or will be harmed through the illegality alleged in the
Case: 1:22-cv-00453-SJD-PBS Doc #: 99 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 6 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

7
complaint.’” Id. (citing Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Trans World Airlines, 111 F.3d 14, 16 (4th
Cir. 1997)).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to show the necessary relationship between his request for
injunctive relief and the claims alleged in his Complaint. Indeed, Plaintiff’s filings and evidence
in support of his request for injunctive relief focus largely on the alleged actions of non-parties.
For example, Plaintiff attached his informal complaint, grievance history, and conduct report
regarding alleged harassment and retaliation by Correction Officer Evans, among others. (Doc. #s
59-2, 59-3, 59-5, 59-6). In his Reply, Plaintiff further describes his conflict with Correction Officer
C. Evans and Sergeant M. Evans. 	(Doc. #72, PageID #s 498-501). 	He also explains that
Correction Officer G. Lawson submitted a false conduct report, and Conduct Hearing Officer M.
Dillow and R.I.B. Chairpersons B. Barney and A. Cooper violated Ohio Administrative Code and
ODRC policies. 	Id. at 500-01; see Doc. #s 59-5, 59-6, 59-7. 	However, Corrections Officer C.
Evans, Sergeant M. Evans, Conduct Hearing Officer M. Dillow, and R.I.B. Chairpersons B.
Barney and A. Cooper are not defendants in this case. 	The other individuals that Plaintiff
specifically refers to in his proposed order are likewise not defendants in this case. Although both
the underlying case and the request for injunctive relief involve questions regarding the conditions
at SOCF and retaliation by SOCF employees, a claim of the same nature is insufficient standing
alone to establish the necessary relationship between the complaint and the motion for injunctive
relief. According, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against
non-parties should be DENIED.
Plaintiff also requests that he be transferred to another prison. (Doc. #54, PageID #323).
However, Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a
preliminary injunction or TRO. He has not presented any evidence either showing a substantial
Case: 1:22-cv-00453-SJD-PBS Doc #: 99 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 7 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

8
likelihood of success on the merits of his constitutional claims. Rather, as noted above, Plaintiff
raises issues in his motion for a TRO/preliminary injunction that are unrelated to the merits of the
claim presented in his Complaint. A motion for a TRO or preliminary injunction is not the means
by which a plaintiff already in court on one claim can seek redress for all other conditions of
confinement that he finds actionable. Arrington v. Scott, No. 12-cv-529, 2013 WL 1080298 (W.D.
Mich. January 7, 2013).
Moreover, a TRO/preliminary injunction is not warranted here because the purpose of a
TRO/preliminary injunction—to preserve the status quo until a trial on the merits can be held, see
S. Milk Sales, Inc. v. Martin, 924 F.2d 98, 102 (6th Cir. 1991)—would not be served. 	Plaintiff
does not seek to preserve the status quo. Instead, he asks to be transferred to another prison, in
order to remedy unproven constitutional violations and retaliation allegations not included in his
Complaint. Such requests do not preserve the status quo of the parties and do not serve the purpose
of a TRO/preliminary injunction.
Finally, “[i]ssuing preliminary injunctive relief transferring Plaintiff to a different prison
would result in harm to both the defendants and the public, because providing appropriate
supervision of [Ohio’s] inmate population necessarily requires the ability to determine where
prisoners are appropriately housed.” Carter v. Bouchard, No. 21-cv-12309, 2021 WL 5774541,
at *3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 14, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 21-12309, 2021 WL
5770739 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 6, 2021); see also Tolliver v. Noble, No. 2:16-cv-1020, 2019 WL
2559512, at *2 (S.D. Ohio June 21, 2019) (“Both [ODRC] and the public have an interest in prison
officials’ ability to regulate the transfer of inmates between facilities. Prison officials ‘are in a far
better position than this court is to evaluate the needs of the prison system writ large and, more
specifically, the proper placement of Plaintiff within that system.’”) (quoting Fisher v. Caruso,
Case: 1:22-cv-00453-SJD-PBS Doc #: 99 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 8 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

9
No. 06-CV-11110, 2007 WL 551603, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 20, 2007)); McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S.
24, 39 (2002) (citing Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976)) (“It is well settled that the
decision where to house inmates is at the core of prison administrators’ expertise.”). It is therefore
recommended that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be DENIED.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
Plaintiff’s Request for a Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary
Restraining Order be DENIED.
December 30, 2025 	s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:22-cv-00453-SJD-PBS Doc #: 99 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>

10
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections
to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with
this Report and Recommendations. 	Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report
objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If
the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at
an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or
such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless
the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir.
1981).
Case: 1:22-cv-00453-SJD-PBS Doc #: 99 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID>