United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction.
Doc. 1. He seeks to enjoin defendant parole board members
from acting as members of the Alabama Board of Pardons and
Parole [ the Board ].  Plaintiff further seeks to enjoin
Defendants from retaliating against him for his litigation
activities. Upon review, the court concludes that the motion
for preliminary injunction is due to be denied.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction “is
within the sound discretion of the district court.”
Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir.
2002). This court may grant a preliminary injunction only if
Plaintiff demonstrates each of the following prerequisites:
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2)
irreparable injury will occur absent issuance of the
injunction; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the potential
damage the requested injunction may cause the non-moving
parties; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the
public interest. Id.; McDonald's Corp. v.
Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998);
Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176, 1185 (11th Cir.
1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht
Corp., 697 F.2d 1352, 1354-55 (11th Cir. 1983).
“In this Circuit, [a] preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the
movant clearly established the burden of persuasion as to the
four requisites.” McDonald's, 147 F.3d at
1306 (internal quotation marks omitted); All Care Nursing
Service, Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp. Inc., 887 F.2d
1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989) (a preliminary injunction is
issued only when “drastic relief” is necessary);
Texas v. Seatrain Int'l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 179
(5th Cir. 1975) (grant of preliminary injunction “is
the exception rather than the rule, ” and movant must
clearly carry the burden of persuasion). The moving
party's failure to demonstrate a “substantial
likelihood of success on the merits” may defeat the
party's claim, regardless of the party's ability to
establish any of the other elements. Church v. City of
Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1342 (11th Cir. 1994); see
also Siegel v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir.
2000) (holding that “the absence of a substantial
likelihood of irreparable injury would, standing alone, make
preliminary injunctive relief improper”). “The
chief function of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the
status quo until the merits of the controversy can be fully
and fairly adjudicated.” Suntrust Bank v. Houghton
Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11th Cir. 2001)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff seeks an order
enjoining defendant parole board members from acting in their
roles as members of the Board. Plaintiff also requests
Defendants be enjoined from taking any retaliatory action
against him. Regarding the latter request, if Plaintiff's
motion was granted, the resulting injunction would amount to
a broad instruction to Defendants to obey the law. Plaintiff
essentially seeks an order directing Defendants to not take
any adverse action against him because of his filing the
instant complaint. Rule 65(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., requires
requests for injunctions to be specific; an injunction which
merely orders a defendant to obey the law is too broad and
too vague to be enforceable. See Burton v. City of Belle
Glade, 178 F.3d 1175, 1201 (11th Cir. 1999).
Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief
prohibiting defendant parole board members from engaging in
their duties as members of the Board, the court finds his
request for preliminary injunctive relief is essentially
contained in his civil rights action which will afford him
with adequate redress for his allegations. Inasmuch as
Plaintiff has a forum for his complaint, equitable remedies,
such as temporary restraining orders or preliminary
injunctions, shall not be given. Plaintiff's request for
preliminary injunctive relief is also devoid of any
allegation he will suffer specific and irreparable harm if an
injunction is not issued. To establish irreparable injury
Plaintiff must show that he will suffer harm that
“cannot be redressed by a legal or an equitable
remedy” through the ordinary course of litigation.
See Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight,
Inc., 882 F.2d 797, 801 (3rd Cir. 1989) (“The
preliminary injunction must be the only way of protecting the
plaintiff from harm”). The third factor, balancing
potential harm to the parties, weighs more heavily in favor
of Defendants. Finally, it is impossible to determine the
scope of Plaintiff's requested relief preventing the
court from determining what burden an injunction would have
on the Alabama Board of Pardons and Parole and whether
issuing one would harm the public interest. Issuing a
preliminary injunction is not warranted.
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff
(Doc. 1) be DENIED; and
2. This case be referred to the undersigned for additional
proceedings. It is
that on or before April 12, 2018, Plaintiff
may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objections
filed must specifically identify the factual findings and
legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge's
Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous,
conclusive or general objections will not be considered by
the District Court.
to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall
bar a party from a de novo determination by the
District Court of factual findings and legal issues covered
in the report and shall "waive the right to challenge on
appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to
factual and legal conclusions" except upon grounds of
plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th
Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. ...