Prison Phone Justice

Washington v. Reno
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Lexington Division
November 9, 1999, Decided ; November 9, 1999, Filed
CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-290
Reporter: 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22485
CONCHITA WASHINGTON, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS VS:
JANET RENO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
Disposition: [*1]
Plaintiff's motion for temporary
restraining order which construed as motion for preliminary
injunctive relief [Record No. 611] DENIED. Plaintiff's
motion for evidentiary hearing [Record No. 610] DENIED.
Counsel: For
GLORIA
BATTON
ROBINSON,
ANTOINETTE M. FRINK, CONCHITA WASHINGTON,
PATRICIA M. DARKS, NORMA FAY COOK, MARTHA
MARIE PRESTON, LOVEN L. LEWIS, LORI SAUNDERS,
RESHAWN RICHARDSON, plaintiffs: Douglas L.
McSwain, Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Maloney, PLLC,
Lexington, KY.
CONCHITA WASHINGTON, plaintiff, Pro se, Ft. Worth,
TX.
OZIE B. COLLINS, plaintiff, Pro se, Florence, CO.
For JANE DOE(S), JOHN HOE, JANE ROE, JANE POE,
JANE MOE, JANE TOE, JANE ZOE, intervenor plaintiffs:
Douglas L. McSwain, Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Maloney,
PLLC, Lexington, KY.

For JANET RENO, KATHLEEN HAWK, USA, BUREAU
OF PRISONS, intervenor defendants: Vincent M. Garvey,
Kathleen E. Moriarty, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
PATRICIA M. DARKS, movant, Pro se, Fort Worth, TX.
MELVIN P. DEUTSCH, movant, Pro se, Otisville, NY.
JAMES A. MCKINES, movant, Pro se, Lompoc, CA.
JIMMY G. NIXON, SR., movant, Pro se, Texarkana, TX.
BILLY RAY HASTINGS, movant, Pro se, Marianna, FL.
JAMERS A. MCKINES, movant, Pro se, Lompac, CA.
WILLIE BUD REED, JR., movant, Pro se, Miami, FL.
MICHAEL JOSEPH KEARNS, movant, Pro se, Texarkana,
TX.
GEORGE D. FARQUHAR, movant, Pro se, Texarkana, TX.
Judges: HENRY R. WILHOIT, JR., CHIEF JUDGE.

For KATHLEEN HAWK, JANET RENO, FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS, DAVID WOODY, MICHAEL A.
ATWOOD, USA, ARTHUR F. BEELER, defendants: David
L. Bunning, U.S. Attorney's Office, Covington, KY.

Opinion by: HENRY R. WILHOIT, JR.

For KATHLEEN HAWK, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS, DAVID WOODY, MICHAEL A. ATWOOD,
defendants: Vincent M. Garvey, Kathleen E. Moriarty, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

For JANET RENO, defendant: Vincent M. Garvey,
Kathleen [*2] E. Moriarty, Raphael O. Gomez, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
For USA, defendant: Vincent M. Garvey, Kathleen E.
Moriarty, Jeff Clair, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington,
DC.
For JANET RENO, KATHLEEN HAWK, USA, BUREAU
OF PRISONS, ARTHUR F. BEELER, intervenor defendants:
David L. Bunning, U.S. Attorney's Office, Covington, KY.

Opinion

This matter is before the court for consideration of the
plaintiffs motion for temporary [*3] restraining order, which
is construed as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief
[Record No. 611]. Additionally, the matter is before the court
for consideration of the plaintiffs motion for an evidentiary
hearing [Record No. 610].
The plaintiff complains: (1) Warden Joseph Bogan at the
Carswell Federal Medical Center for Women in Fort Worth,
Texas, has ignored the plaintiff's requests for access to current
copies of the Federal Register; (2) plaintiff has not been
provided with ITS inmate telephone system information to
which she claims an entitlement; (3) plaintiff has been denied
opportunities for correspondence to which she claims
entitlement; (4) plaintiff was only permitted a monitored
telephone call to an attorney who

Page 2 of 2
1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22485, *3
no longer represented her; (5) plaintiff experienced retaliation attempting to act as an attorney on behalf of the plaintiff class,
for exercising her first amendment right to file grievances; (6) she may not do so and participate in the unauthorized practice
plaintiff has had difficulty exhausting administrative of law. Thus, there are serious questions about whether the
remedies; (7) an unspecified provision in the Settlement movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits of any
Agreement regarding a prisoner's financial responsibility of the complained-of activities.
program has not been implemented at the Carswell Federal
Medical Center for Women; (8) the Federal Medical Center at In considering whether the movant would suffer irreparable
Carswell does not provide the inmates with [*4] advance injury without the injunction, the court reiterates that because
notice of inmate telephone system changes to which the the movant has not conclusively established that she has, in
plaintiff claims an entitlement; (9) the plaintiff has not fact, been harmed by various [*6] of the complaints she
received an account of disbursements under the Settlement brings, the only thing that is clear is that it is unclear whether
Agreement, to which she claims entitlement; (10) the inmate the movant herself would ever suffer an injury without the
welfare fund was abolished without notice to the plaintiff, to injunction. As it is seriously unclear whether the movant
which she claims entitlement; (11) telephone lists have not would be personally injured with regard to each and every one
been destroyed; (12) prisoner telephone list information is of the more than thirteen claims, it cannot be said that the
sold to outside private telephone carriers, constituting second prong of the four factors to be considered in a motion
invasion of privacy; and (13) Federal Medical Center at for preliminary injunctive relief has been met by this movant.
Carswell telephone calls are improperly billed.
Issuance of an injunction at this time could cause substantial
In considering a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, a harm to others. The complaints the plaintiff brings and the
court must consider and balance four factors: "(1) whether the relief she apparently seeks are so widespread and widemovant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) ranging that without additional specific factual detail and
whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without greater understanding of the intricacies of the vast systems the
the injunction; (3) whether issuance of the injunction would plaintiff challenges, it is entirely possible that to issue an
cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public injunction at this time would cause substantial harm to others.
interest would be served by issuance of the injunction."
Memphis Planned Parenthood, Inc. v. Sundquist, 175 F.3d In considering whether the public interest would be served by
issuance of an injunction, at this time it cannot be said that
456, 460 (6th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).
from the face of this complaint the public interest would be
The movant does not have a strong likelihood of success on served by issuance of an injunction.
the merits of [*5] any of her asserted claims. The plaintiffs
claims are vaguely pled in several respects. Often the plaintiff Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining
claims an entitlement without specifying a foundation or order, which is construed as [*7] a motion for preliminary
source for that alleged entitlement. The plaintiff repeatedly injunctive relief [Record No. 611], is hereby DENIED.
takes issue with the conditions under which she is confined, Additionally, as the motion for temporary restraining order is
without pleading a factual situation that establishes any denied and there is no need for an evidentiary hearing on this
constitutional violation. Vague and general allegations are matter, plaintiff's motion for an evidentiary hearing [Record
made regarding actions that are taken against inmates No. 610] is hereby DENIED.
generally, so as to cloud whether different ones of the more
than thirteen complaints the plaintiff registers have, in fact, This the 9 day of November, 1999.
involved the plaintiff to a degree that would afford her
HENRY R. WILHOIT, JR., CHIEF JUDGE
standing to bring this motion. To the extent the plaintiff is