United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KATHERINE P. NELSON, Magistrate Judge.
This action is before the Court on a motion for a temporary restraining order ("motion") filed by plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. (Doc. 34). This § 1983 action has been referred to the undersigned for appropriate action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4). After careful review, it is recommended that plaintiff's motion be denied.
A. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. 34).
At the outset, the Court notes that the allegations in plaintiff's motion are varied and do not correspond to the allegations in his complaint. These allegations are recounted as follows.
Plaintiff alleges that on August 25, 2014, defendant Larry Bailey and cert-team officers "hit [his] head against the floor and bust it open onside [sic] of [his] eye." (Doc. 34 at 1). Plaintiff states that he "did a body chart" and is going to file another complaint on that incident. (Id. at 2).
Also, plaintiff alleges that he cannot sleep because he fears for his life due to defendant Danny Fountain telling plaintiff that "he is going to kill [plaintiff]." (Id. at 2).
Plaintiff further alleges that Warden Walter Myers, a non-defendant, will not release him from segregation even though he has done his time, which is due to Myers not liking him. (Id.). He claims that he is being held for no reason in segregation and refers the Court to three exhibits attached to his motion. (Id.; 4-6). While in segregation, he maintains that he cannot receive anything from the law library. (Id. at 2). That is, he has been asking for the past two months for the "Alabama Rules of Court  Federal" and has not received it. (Id.). Plaintiff asserts that "[he] can't gather nothing without looking in these books and this is prejudice towards [him, ] because [he] does not have a lawyer to help [him] with what [he] needs." (Id.).
For relief, plaintiff asks the Court for a "temporary restraining order on all of the defendants, " (the individual names of all defendants were reiterated in the motion). (Id. at 1). Further, he "ask[ed] the court to grant [his] motion d[ue] to what's going on." (Id. at 2).
B. Amended Complaint. (Doc. 15).
In the amended complaint before the Court, plaintiff complains about being sprayed with mace on August 20, 2013, in his segregation cell at Fountain Correctional Facility after he refused to be handcuffed. (Doc. 15 at 4). After he was handcuffed, he was taken from his cell and leg irons were placed on him. (Id. at 4, 8). At that time, plaintiff complains about being sprayed again and being hit. (Id.). Plaintiff further complains about a ligament in his wrist being messed up which occurred when he was placed in the shower, the handcuffs were removed, and someone tried to break his wrist. (Id. at 8). For these acts, plaintiff seeks $250, 000 and to make sure the officers do not do this again to him and others. (Doc. 15 at 4, 7, 9).
The primary purpose of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo of the parties until there is a trial on the merits. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 1834, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981). The "criteria for obtaining a preliminary injunction are identical to those for issuance of a temporary restraining order." Windsor v. United States, 379 F.Appx. 912, 916-17 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). Preliminary injunctive relief "is an extraordinary and drastic remedy[, ]" which will not be granted unless the movant carries the burden of persuasion on the following four prerequisites. Zardui-Quintana v. Richard, 768 F.2d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir. 1985) (citation and quotations marks omitted). To prevail on a request for preliminary injunctive relief, the movant must show:
(1) a substantial likelihood that he will ultimately prevail on the merits; (2) that he will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) ...