McClain v. Strada et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JOHNNY EUGENE McCLAIN 	)
)
v. 	) 	NO: 3:25-cv-00557
) 	Richardson/Holmes
F/N/U STRADA et al. 	)
TO: 	Honorable Eli Richardson, 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. 36 and 42). For the reasons set out below, the Court recommends that the motions be
denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2025, Johnny Eugene McClain (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently confined
at the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center (“TTCC”) in Hartsville, Tennessee, 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 asserts 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 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,
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 69 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

2
2024, and sprayed his cell with pepper spray. In addition to these events, Plaintiff complains about
a variety of other actions by prison officials and names 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.
Of the seven Defendants against whom Plaintiff was found to have alleged arguable claims,
only three were identified by Plaintiff in his original complaint. Summons were issued to these
three Defendants but only one Defendant, Edmond Hill, has been served with process and is
currently before the Court. Process for Defendant Rickey Hill appears to have been incorrectly
accepted on his behalf, see Docket Entry No. 53, and there is no indication that Defendant Hunt
has been served with process. As to the remaining four Defendants, Plaintiff has moved to amend
his complaint to identify them.1
II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
In his first motion, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to ensure that he is taken to all
of his medical appointments and surgeries and to require prison officials to produce the names of
any “Doe” defendants. See Docket Entry No. 36 at 2. He further appears to request that prison
officials “stop putting gang members” in his cell.” Id.
1 By a separately entered order, the Court has (1) ruled on Plaintiff’s motions to amend and
directed that summons issue for additional defendants and (2) addressed other service related
matters.
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 69 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

3
In his second motion, Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to require prison officials to
give him copies of all grievances that he has filed. See Docket Entry No. 42 at 1. He also requests
that the Court “step in” to request that his medical records from non-prison medical providers be
sent to his family because of problems he has experienced receiving his mail at the TTCC. Id. at
1-2. He further complains that his incoming mail is being opened and destroyed. Id.
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)
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 69 Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

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).
The Court should exercise its discretion and deny Plaintiff’s motions. As an initial matter,
the motions should be denied for the threshold reason that they are not supported by an affidavit,
declaration, or any other type of actual evidence. 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, some aspects of the injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff - providing him with documents
and information - are actually issues that are more appropriately raised as discovery issues. 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.”). Second, Plaintiff does
not direct his requests for preliminary injunctive relief at any particular defendant who has been
shown to be able to provide the requested relief. “In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, there
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 69 Filed 12/03/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

5
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).
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
incarceration and by providing him with affirmative relief prior to any resolution of his claims.
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, such as the provision of
health care to a particular inmate. 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,
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 69 Filed 12/03/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

6
82 (1987)) (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, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motions
for emergency injunctive relief (Docket Entry Nos. 36 and 42) 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). 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).
Signed By:
J. Gregory Wehrman
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00557 Document 69 Filed 12/03/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>