United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
F. MOORER UNITES STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction. Plaintiff asserts that in addition to the instant
civil action, there are criminal charges pending against him
in this court. He maintains this civil action predates his
federal criminal case and states it is appropriate to address
his criminal case issues first through this civil case
because the issues are related and the civil action predates
his criminal charges. Plaintiff appears to request 蘫
federal prosecution in this court be enjoined to the extent
such prosecution would not be in conformance with his rights
under the U.S. Constitution and that cases which relate to
the pending action be conducted in compliance with Article
III, the U.S. Constitution, and state law. Upon review, the
court concludes 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 these 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; 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) (noting 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)
(quoting Northeastern Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen.
Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d
1283, 1284 (11th Cir. 1990).
of Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief reflects he
is not entitled to a preliminary injunction in this case
based on the circumstances presented. A preliminary
injunction is not an appropriate vehicle for trying to obtain
relief that is not even sought in the underlying action.
See Klay v. United HealthGroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092,
1097-98 (11th Cir. 2004) (the requested injunctive relief
must relate in some fashion to the relief requested in the
complaint). To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, a
plaintiff must demonstrate a substantial likelihood of
prevailing on the merits of at least one of the causes of
action as preliminary injunctions are a tool appropriately
used only to “grant intermediate relief of the same
character as that which may be granted finally.”
Kaimowitz v. Orlando, 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir.
1997). Even if Plaintiff could establish the propriety of his
request for preliminary injunctive relief, his request is
devoid of any allegation he will suffer specific and
irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued. To establish
irreparable injury Plaintiff must show 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 (3d Cir. 1989) (“The
preliminary injunction must be the only way of protecting the
plaintiff from harm”); Sampson v. Murray, 415
U.S. 61, 90 (1974) (internal quotation omitted) (this
“possibility that adequate compensatory or other
corrective relief will be available at a later date, in the
ordinary course of litigation, [also] weighs heavily against
a claim of irreparable harm.”). ”). Finally, it
is impossible to determine what Plaintiff's requested
relief would entail exactly and whether issuing a preliminary
injunction would harm the public interest. Issuing a
preliminary injunction is not warranted.
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 73) be DENIED; and
case be referred to the undersigned for additional
proceedings. It is further
that on or before August 27, 2018, the
parties may file an objection to this Recommendation. Any
objections filed must specifically identify the factual
findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge's
Recommendation to which a party 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 ...