Atha v. Washburn, 3:19-cv-00544

Plaintiff Jonathan Michael Atha, a Tennessee Department of Correction prisoner, filed a pro se in forma pauperis § 1983 action alleging failure to protect, retaliation, and RLUIPA/religious-rights violations.
Complaint (filed June 28, 2019) survived initial frivolity review as to several defendants; some defendants were unserved or no longer employed at TTCC.
Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) seeking (1) placement in protective custody and (2) transfer to Trousdale Turner Correctional Center (TTCC) pending resolution.
Subsequent filings indicate Atha was transferred off TTCC and was being held in solitary confinement at South Central Correctional Facility (SCCF).
The Magistrate Judge applied the four-factor TRO/preliminary-injunction test (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, harm to others, public interest) and noted the extraordinary-nature standard for injunctive relief.
The Magistrate recommended denial of the TRO, reasoning there was no immediate/urgent need, Atha failed to show a strong likelihood of success or that the public interest favored relief, and courts should defer to prison officials absent extraordinary reasons.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a TRO ordering protective custody and transfer to TTCC is warranted	Atha contends he faces immediate risk of violence and needs protective custody and transfer	No urgent need shown; Atha was already transferred off TTCC and is in solitary; prison officials' placement decisions deserve deference	TRO denied — no urgent need; relief not warranted
Whether Atha has shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits	Claims failure to protect, retaliation, and religious-rights violations under § 1983 and RLUIPA	Plaintiff has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of prevailing on those claims at this stage	Court found plaintiff failed to show a strong likelihood of success
Whether irreparable harm/public interest support injunctive relief and whether court should override prison officials	Atha asserts risk of imminent harm/death and public interest in his safety	No compelling evidence of imminent harm; public interest not shown; day-to-day prison operations are for correctional officials to manage	No irreparable harm shown; public interest does not favor injunction; deference to prison officials warranted

Clemons v. Board of Educ., 228 F.2d 853 (6th Cir. 1956) (TROs/preliminary injunctions are preventive/protective extraordinary relief)
Detroit Newspaper Publishers Ass’n v. Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, Int’l Typographical Union, 471 F.2d 872 (6th Cir. 1972) (extraordinary nature of injunctive relief)
Overstreet v. Lexington–Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2002) (burden on movant to show circumstances clearly demand injunctive relief)
Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2000) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction/TRO)
Ohio Republican Party v. Brunner, 543 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2008) (same four-factor test applies to TROs)
Nader v. Blackwell, 230 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 2000) (factors for injunctive relief are balanced)
Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432 (6th Cir. 1984) (courts should defer to prison officials on day-to-day operations absent extraordinary reasons)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to timely object to a magistrate judge’s report may waive appellate review)
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (procedural waiver principles regarding objections to magistrate reports)