## Facts

- Diane Southerland, a Mississippi state prisoner, pleaded guilty to embezzlement and received a five-year sentence; she was pregnant when sentenced and when received into custody.
- While incarcerated, she was transferred to a medical center and gave birth to her son, Matthew Lee Ray, on November 18, 1985, and began breastfeeding him in the hospital.
- When state officials sought to return Southerland to prison and separate her from the newborn, Southerland and Matthew (through Southerland as next friend) filed a federal action seeking emergency injunctive relief to prevent separation and maintain breastfeeding.
- By agreement, the district court entered a temporary restraining order allowing mother and infant to remain together in the hospital pending a hearing.
- At the combined hearing on temporary and preliminary relief, plaintiffs presented evidence that breastfeeding would reduce risks of allergies and diabetes (given family history and gestational diabetes) and provide general immunological and psychological benefits.
- The State opposed the requested order based on institutional, security, and resource concerns associated with accommodating an infant and continued mother-infant co-residence within the correctional system.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction, finding (among other things) that the child’s life was not endangered by the lack of breastfeeding and that plaintiffs were unlikely to establish a legal entitlement to the requested arrangement.

## Issues

1. Whether an incarcerated mother is likely to succeed on a claim that the Constitution (or other federal law) requires prison officials to accommodate a breastfeeding relationship by keeping a newborn with the mother.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction under the four-factor test (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest).

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
- The court accepted that breastfeeding may be beneficial, but upheld the finding that separation and alternative feeding did not pose a life-threatening risk to the child for purposes of irreparable harm.
- The court agreed that the balance of harms and public interest weighed against an injunction that would significantly intrude into prison administration and require ongoing accommodations for an infant.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy; the movant must establish likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, a favorable balance of harms, and consistency with the public interest.
- Appellate review of the denial of a preliminary injunction is for abuse of discretion, with deference to the district court’s findings and weighing of the equitable factors.
- In the prison context, courts give substantial deference to correctional officials’ judgments concerning security, order, and allocation of institutional resources.
- The existence of general family-association interests does not, without clear authority, establish a constitutional entitlement for an inmate to co-reside with and breastfeed a newborn within the prison system, particularly at the preliminary-injunction stage.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief because the inmate mother did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of establishing a constitutional right to keep her newborn with her to breastfeed, and the asserted harms did not outweigh the State’s institutional and security concerns under the deferential preliminary-injunction and prison-administration standards.


Southerland v. Thigpen, 784 F.2d 713 (5th Cir. 1986)