GUMPL v. Seiter, C-1-85-1432.

• Decision Date: 26 May 1988
• Docket Number: No. C-1-85-1432.,C-1-85-1432.
• Citation: 687 F. Supp. 1212
• Parties: Stephen W. GUMPL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Richard P. SEITER, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

687 F. Supp. 1212

Stephen W. GUMPL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Richard P. SEITER, et al., Defendants.

No. C-1-85-1432.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D.

May 26, 1988.

Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Stephen W. Gumpl.

Stephen W. Gumpl, Lucasville, Ohio, pro se.

Sylvester Milner, London, Ohio, pro se.

Frederick C. Schoch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbus, Ohio, for defendants.

ORDER

HERMAN J. WEBER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate (doc. no. 47) recommending to this Court that the plaintiffs' Motion for the Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction (doc. no. 34) be denied. Plaintiffs move this Court to enjoin the defendants, through their agents, from harassing, threatening, and trying to remove plaintiffs and their witnesses from the Protective Control Block as punishment for approaching this Court. They also request a hearing on their Motion.

Plaintiffs contend that they have been subjected to harassment and retaliation since the filing of this lawsuit. They allege that they have been charged falsely with rules infractions in an effort to get them removed from protective custody and separated from their "witnesses" in protective custody. Plaintiffs have submitted affidavits in support of their allegations that they are being "set up" with infraction tickets in an effort to transfer them out of protective custody into a disciplinary block. Plaintiffs allege that they will be killed if confined in the disciplinary block. Plaintiffs request an order permitting them to remain in the protective custody block of SOCF.

Subsequent to the filing of the motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs submitted "addendums" (Docs. 37,38) which set forth additional allegations in support of the motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs allege that plaintiff Milner was found not guilty of the rule infraction. While plaintiff Howard was initially found guilty of the rule infraction, his conviction was subsequently reversed and plaintiff Howard was returned to protective custody. Plaintiffs allege that inmate Pinkerman's conviction was not reversed and that inmate Pinkerman remains in disciplinary confinement as a result. Plaintiff Gumpl has not been tried on the disciplinary charge. Subsequent to the filing of the Report and Recommendation, however, Plaintiff Gumpl was transferred to Marion Correctional Facility, which he alleges placed him in "a very dangerous situation" and that upon transfer back to SOCF, plaintiff Gumpl lost 2 security level points and 8 supervision level points.

In determining whether to grant the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court must consider four factors:

1) Whether plaintiffs have shown a strong or substantial likelihood or probability of success on the merits;

2) Whether plaintiffs have shown irreparable injury;

3) Whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to others;

4) Whether the public interest would be served by issuing a preliminary injunction.

Friendship Materials, Inc. v. Michigan Brick, Inc., 679 F.2d 100, 102 (6th Cir. 1982); Mason County Medical Association v. Knebel, 563 F.2d 256, 261 (6th Cir.1977).

In Friendship Materials, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals made it clear that a District Court is prohibited from granting a preliminary injunction without making specific findings of irreparable injury to the party seeking the injunction. Absent such a finding, this Court may not merely weigh the harm likely to be suffered by the plaintiff absent a preliminary injunction against the harm an injunction could cause to the defendant, regardless of the Court's opinion on the plaintiffs' chance of success on the merits. The Court must have before it irreparable harm which decidedly outweighs any potential harm to the defendant if an injunction is issued.

Unsubstantiated and unexplained assertions that "Plaintiffs and their witnesses would be killed if forced into disciplinary blocks with the very people they put into those blocks, and if permanently removed from the Protective Control Unit, plaintiffs would be killed in General Population" do not permit a...