United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
MICHAEL D. LEATHERWOOD, Plaintiff,
JOE M. ALLBAUGH, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BERNARD M. JONES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
filed a Complaint, [Doc. No. 1], and a motion for injunctive
relief, (Pet.'s Mot.) [Doc. No. 2],  on January 17,
2017. In his motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff
complained about Cimarron Correctional Facility's (CCF)
“lock-in/lock-out” policy and violent atmosphere
and presumably either sought a change in CCF's policies
and inmate-makeup or a transfer out of CCF. See
id. United States District Judge Robin J.
Cauthron referred the matter for proposed findings and
recommendations consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and (C) and the discovery process remains ongoing. On
September 3, 2019, Plaintiff informed the Court he had been
transferred out of CCF, and after consecutive transfers,
Plaintiff is now housed at Lexington Correctional Center.
[Doc. Nos. 66-68]. Accordingly, the Court recommends
Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief be denied as
qualify for either a temporary restraining order or a
preliminary injunction, the movant must establish: (1) he is
“substantially likely to succeed on the merits;”
(2) he “will suffer irreparable injury if the
injunction is denied;” (3) the threatened injury to him
“outweighs the injury” to the party opposing the
injunction; and (4) “the injunction would not be
adverse to the public interest.” New Mexico
Dep't of Game & Fish v. United States Dep't of
the Interior, 854 F.3d 1236, 1245-46 (10th Cir. 2017)
(citations omitted) (discussing the requirements for a
preliminary injunction); see also Wiechmann v.
Ritter, 44 Fed.Appx. 346, 347 (10th Cir. 2002) (noting
that the requirements for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction are the same). Finally, injunctive
relief is only appropriate when the movant's right to
relief is clear and unequivocal. Schrier v. Univ. of
Colo., 427 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff is unable to show a clear and unequivocal right to
relief because he has already been transferred out of CCF and
there is no indication he will return in the foreseeable
future. Thus, Plaintiff's transfer from CCF renders moot
his request for injunctive relief. See generally Green v.
Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1300 (10th Cir. 1997); see
also Jordan v. Sosa, 654 F.3d 1012, 1027-28 (10th Cir.
2011); Burnett v. Fallin, No. CIV-17-385-M, 2018 WL
4376513, at *3 (W.D. Okla. June 5, 2018) (finding
plaintiff's request for injunctive relief moot upon his
transfer because “Plaintiff is no longer subjected to
the alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement at
JCCC”), adopted, 2018 WL 4374199 (W.D. Okla.
Sept. 13, 2018), aff'd, No. 18-6179, 2019 WL
4060152 (10th Cir. Aug. 28, 2019); Sermeno v.
Allbaugh, No. CIV-16-1196-C, 2017 WL 3129983, at *4
(W.D. Okla. June 21, 2017) (finding inmate's request for
injunctive relief moot where, due to a change in
circumstances, the court no longer had the ability to order
any effective relief), adopted, 2017 WL 3128819
(W.D. Okla. July 21, 2017).
foregoing reasons, the Court should DENY Plaintiff's
motion for injunctive relief, [Doc. No. 2], as moot.
OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
parties are advised of their right to object to this Report
and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any
objection must be filed with the Clerk of the District Court
by October 30, 2019. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to make timely objection to
this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate
review of the factual and legal issues addressed herein.
See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir.
Report and Recommendation does not terminate the District
Judge's referral in this matter.
 Plaintiff sought both a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction. See
Pet.'s Mot. at 1. The Court need not decide which was
most appropriate as the standards are the same. See
infra at 2.
 Plaintiff did not actually identify
the relief he sought. See Pet.'s Mot.,