×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Denial of Injunction Against Federal Guard's Sexual Harassment/Retaliation Reversed
Denial of Injunction Against Federal Guard's Sexual Harassment/Retaliation
Reversed
The Fifth Circuit court of appeals has reversed the denial of a Texas
federal prisoner's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking
relief from sexual harassment and retaliation by a federal prison guard.
Robert P. Dixon, a federal prisoner incarcerated in Texarkana, Texas,
filed a motion seeking a TRO against guard Douglas Vanderbilt whom,
according to Dixon, was sexually harassing him and retaliating because
Dixon had filed grievances regarding the sexual harassment. Dixon sought
to have witnesses present whenever Douglas searched him or to be
transferred to another federal prison. The magistrate judge first
characterized the motion as a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, then
determined that Dixon's allegations were conclusional and denied the
motion. Dixon appealed.
The Fifth Circuit first noted that it had no jurisdiction to hear an
appeal from a denial of a TRO. However, the relief requested by Dixon
would necessarily extend beyond the 10-day limit of a TRO. Therefore, the
Fifth Circuit held that the motion for a TRO was properly characterized as
a motion for a preliminary injunction, the denial of which is appealable.
The Fifth Circuit then held that the magistrate erred in characterizing
the complaint seeking injunctive relief as a complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, which does not apply to federal prisoners suing federal
officials. The Fifth Circuit also noted that, because Dixon alleged a
continuing violation of his constitutional rights, he had a right to seek
relief.
The Fifth Circuit also held that the magistrate's determination that
Dixon's allegations were conclusional was incorrect. The allegations were
numerous and specific. Therefore, the magistrate should have conducted a
hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction and made factual findings
on the reasonableness of the searches and alleged retaliation before
determining whether Dixon met the criteria for granting injunctive relief
set forth in Women's Medical Ctr. of Northwest Houston v. Bell, 248 F.3d
411 (5th Cir. 2001). The denial of the motion was vacated and the case
returned to the district court for further proceedings on the motion. This
decision is unpublished. See: Dixon v. Vanderbilt, 122 Fed.Appx. 694 (5th
Cir. 2004).
Reversed
The Fifth Circuit court of appeals has reversed the denial of a Texas
federal prisoner's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking
relief from sexual harassment and retaliation by a federal prison guard.
Robert P. Dixon, a federal prisoner incarcerated in Texarkana, Texas,
filed a motion seeking a TRO against guard Douglas Vanderbilt whom,
according to Dixon, was sexually harassing him and retaliating because
Dixon had filed grievances regarding the sexual harassment. Dixon sought
to have witnesses present whenever Douglas searched him or to be
transferred to another federal prison. The magistrate judge first
characterized the motion as a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, then
determined that Dixon's allegations were conclusional and denied the
motion. Dixon appealed.
The Fifth Circuit first noted that it had no jurisdiction to hear an
appeal from a denial of a TRO. However, the relief requested by Dixon
would necessarily extend beyond the 10-day limit of a TRO. Therefore, the
Fifth Circuit held that the motion for a TRO was properly characterized as
a motion for a preliminary injunction, the denial of which is appealable.
The Fifth Circuit then held that the magistrate erred in characterizing
the complaint seeking injunctive relief as a complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, which does not apply to federal prisoners suing federal
officials. The Fifth Circuit also noted that, because Dixon alleged a
continuing violation of his constitutional rights, he had a right to seek
relief.
The Fifth Circuit also held that the magistrate's determination that
Dixon's allegations were conclusional was incorrect. The allegations were
numerous and specific. Therefore, the magistrate should have conducted a
hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction and made factual findings
on the reasonableness of the searches and alleged retaliation before
determining whether Dixon met the criteria for granting injunctive relief
set forth in Women's Medical Ctr. of Northwest Houston v. Bell, 248 F.3d
411 (5th Cir. 2001). The denial of the motion was vacated and the case
returned to the district court for further proceedings on the motion. This
decision is unpublished. See: Dixon v. Vanderbilt, 122 Fed.Appx. 694 (5th
Cir. 2004).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Dixon v. Vanderbilt
| Year | 2004 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 122 Fed.Appx. 694 (5th Cir. 2004) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
[U] Dixon v. Vanderbilt, 122 Fed.Appx. 694 (5th Cir. 11/17/2004)
[1] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 04-40742
[3] 122 Fed.Appx. 694, 2004
[4] November 17, 2004
[5] ROBERT P. DIXON, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DOUGLAS VANDERBILT, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CV-235-DF-CMC
[7] Before Wiener, Benavides, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.
[8] Per curiam.
[9] UNPUBLISHED
[10] Summary Calendar
[11] Robert P. Dixon, Texas state prisoner # 26529-034, appeals the denial of his motion seeking a restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief precluding Officer Douglas Vanderbilt from sexually harassing Dixon and retaliating against him because Dixon files grievances complaining about the harassment. Dixon sought to have searches conducted by Vanderbilt witnessed or for Dixon to be transferred to another facility.
[12] This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) is not appealable. Matter of Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990). The denial of a preliminary injunction, however, is immediately appealable, if it is related to the substantive issues of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1); Siebert v. Great Northern Development Co., 494 F.2d 510, 511 (5th Cir. 1974); Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991).
[13] Because Dixon sought relief that if granted would exceed the 10-day limit of a TRO, his motion was in effect a motion for preliminary injunction related to the substantive issues in the litigation and, thus, the denial of the motion is an appealable order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b).
[14] The district court erroneously construed Dixon's complaint seeking injunctive relief as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Dixon is a federal prisoner suing a federal officer, and thus, Dixon is not entitled to seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Manax v. McNamara, 842 F.2d 808, 812 (5th Cir. 1988). Because he has alleged a violation of his constitutional rights, Dixon is entitled to seek injunctive relief to safeguard those rights.
[15] See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684 (1946).
[16] A movant for a preliminary injunction must demonstrate each of the following: 1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; 3) the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction will cause to the adverse party; and 4) the injunction will not have an adverse effect on the public interest. Women's Med. Ctr. of Northwest Houston v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 418-20 (5th Cir. 2001).
[17] "An injunction is an extraordinary remedy and should not issue except upon a clear showing of possible irreparable harm." Lewis v. S.S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1121 (5th Cir. 1976). Dixon's allegations reflect that he was subject to violations of his constitutional rights and that prison officials refused to act to end the violations. See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 (5th Cir. 1994); Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 744 (5th Cir. 2002); Downey v. Denton County, Tex., 119 F.3d 381, 385 n.6 (5th Cir. 1997).
[18] The magistrate judge's determination that Dixon's allegations were conclusional is not supported by the record as Dixon's allegations were numerous and specific in nature. The magistrate judge should have conducted a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion and made factual findings on the disputed issues concerning the reasonableness of the searches and the alleged retaliatory conduct by Vanderbilt in determining whether Dixon met the criteria for injunctive relief. Cf. Hay v. Waldron, 834 F.2d 481, 485 (5th Cir. 1987).
[19] The denial of Dixon's motions seeking injunctive relief is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for further consideration of the motion for preliminary injunction.
[20] VACATED AND REMANDED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[21] *fn1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
[1] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
[2] No. 04-40742
[3] 122 Fed.Appx. 694, 2004
[4] November 17, 2004
[5] ROBERT P. DIXON, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
DOUGLAS VANDERBILT, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
[6] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CV-235-DF-CMC
[7] Before Wiener, Benavides, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.
[8] Per curiam.
[9] UNPUBLISHED
[10] Summary Calendar
[11] Robert P. Dixon, Texas state prisoner # 26529-034, appeals the denial of his motion seeking a restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief precluding Officer Douglas Vanderbilt from sexually harassing Dixon and retaliating against him because Dixon files grievances complaining about the harassment. Dixon sought to have searches conducted by Vanderbilt witnessed or for Dixon to be transferred to another facility.
[12] This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) is not appealable. Matter of Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990). The denial of a preliminary injunction, however, is immediately appealable, if it is related to the substantive issues of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1); Siebert v. Great Northern Development Co., 494 F.2d 510, 511 (5th Cir. 1974); Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991).
[13] Because Dixon sought relief that if granted would exceed the 10-day limit of a TRO, his motion was in effect a motion for preliminary injunction related to the substantive issues in the litigation and, thus, the denial of the motion is an appealable order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b).
[14] The district court erroneously construed Dixon's complaint seeking injunctive relief as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Dixon is a federal prisoner suing a federal officer, and thus, Dixon is not entitled to seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Manax v. McNamara, 842 F.2d 808, 812 (5th Cir. 1988). Because he has alleged a violation of his constitutional rights, Dixon is entitled to seek injunctive relief to safeguard those rights.
[15] See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684 (1946).
[16] A movant for a preliminary injunction must demonstrate each of the following: 1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; 3) the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction will cause to the adverse party; and 4) the injunction will not have an adverse effect on the public interest. Women's Med. Ctr. of Northwest Houston v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 418-20 (5th Cir. 2001).
[17] "An injunction is an extraordinary remedy and should not issue except upon a clear showing of possible irreparable harm." Lewis v. S.S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1121 (5th Cir. 1976). Dixon's allegations reflect that he was subject to violations of his constitutional rights and that prison officials refused to act to end the violations. See Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 191 (5th Cir. 1994); Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 744 (5th Cir. 2002); Downey v. Denton County, Tex., 119 F.3d 381, 385 n.6 (5th Cir. 1997).
[18] The magistrate judge's determination that Dixon's allegations were conclusional is not supported by the record as Dixon's allegations were numerous and specific in nature. The magistrate judge should have conducted a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion and made factual findings on the disputed issues concerning the reasonableness of the searches and the alleged retaliatory conduct by Vanderbilt in determining whether Dixon met the criteria for injunctive relief. Cf. Hay v. Waldron, 834 F.2d 481, 485 (5th Cir. 1987).
[19] The denial of Dixon's motions seeking injunctive relief is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for further consideration of the motion for preliminary injunction.
[20] VACATED AND REMANDED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[21] *fn1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.