United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
OTIS SHANNON, Reg. No. 70150-019, Petitioner,
WARDEN W. WOODS, Respondent.
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE
Charles S. Coody United States Magistrate Judge
requests leave to file a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Upon consideration of the motion, it is
that the motion (Doc. 18) is GRANTED.
the court is Petitioner's request for a preliminary
injunction. He seeks issuance of a preliminary injunction
directing his immediate placement in a residential re-entry
center [“RCC”]. Petitioner maintains the
court's order granting Respondent additional time to file
an answer to the instant action extends adjudication of this
matter which will result in a lapse of the time period within
which he seeks RCC placement. Upon review, the court
concludes that the motion for preliminary injunction is due
to be denied.
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).
court has carefully reviewed Petitioner's request for a
preliminary injunction in which he contends the BOP has used
criteria not intended by Congress to determine the amount of
time for his RCC placement and that failure to grant him
immediate RCC placement will result in a loss of ability to
work and earn income, to interact with the outside world, and
to earn the privilege of going home on weekends.
Petitioner's generalized statements are insufficient to
meet his heightened burden of proof on the four factors
necessary to demonstrate entitlement to preliminary
injunctive relief. Seatrain Int'l, S.A., 518
F.2d at 179. Further, even if Petitioner could demonstrate an
injunction is proper, the court lacks the authority to order
the Bureau of Prisons to act as Petitioner seeks in his
motion as the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3621 make clear
that the authority to designate a place or location of
imprisonment is within the sole discretion of the
Issuing a preliminary injunction is not warranted.
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Petitioner
(Doc. 18) be DENIED; and
2. This case be referred to the undersigned for additional
that on or before January 30, 2019, the
parties may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any
objection 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 ...