Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:13-cv-173-NBB-JMV
03-04-2014
ARTIS F. POWER PLAINTIFF v. CHRISTOPHER EPPS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This matter is before the court on plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction [3]. However, the motion itself - aside from its title - does not purport to seek injunctive relief. Instead, it is a re-hash of the apparently unrelated facts giving rise to the plaintiff's complaint. Further, while the memo in support of the motion does make - albeit exceedingly vague - reference to concerns for his own safety, "unfair punishment," and a desire to be transferred to another prison, the court finds these generic allegations fall hopelessly short of adequately asserting entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief.
Inmates have neither a protected property or liberty interest to any particular housing assignment or custodial classification, either under the United States Constitution or under Mississippi law. Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995); Wilson v. Budney, 976 F.2d 957, 958 (5th Cir. 1992); McCord v. Maggio, 910 F.2d 1248, 1250 (5th Cir. 1990); Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976)(citations omitted); MISS. CODE ANN. §§ 47-5-99 to -103 (1993). Prisoner classification is a matter squarely within the "broad discretion" of prison officials, "free from judicial intervention" except in extreme circumstances. McCord, 910 F.2d at 1250 (citations omitted). In the instant case, plaintiff has made no showing that his is such a case. Indeed, though plaintiff asserts he is concerned for his safety, he offers not the first detail in support of such contention. Accordingly, the motion for preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED.
Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE