United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
M. BORDEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the court is Plaintiff's request for a preliminary
injunction. Doc. 43. Plaintiff states that he arrived at the
Limestone Correctional Facility on November 21, 2018. He
seeks to enjoin correctional officials at Limestone from
destroying various papers and legal material he could not
mail home by December 21, 2018 and from retaining certain
items of his religious property. Upon review, the court
concludes the motion for preliminary injunction is due to be
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
a 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 & 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 quotations marks omitted); All Care
Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp. Inc.,
887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding that 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) (holding that
the grant of a preliminary injunction “is the exception
rather than the rule, ” and the 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 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. Ch. of Assoc. Gen.
Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d
1283, 1284 (11th Cir. 1990)).
court has reviewed Plaintiff's request for a preliminary
injunction and finds that the request for injunctive relief
is inappropriate since the injunction he seeks is not
requested or related to the claim in this case and appears to
have arisen during the pendency of this action. See
Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir.
1997) (“A district court should not issue an injunction
when the injunction in question is not of the same character,
and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in
the suit.”); Westbank Yellow Pages v. BRI,
Inc., 1996 WL 255912, at *1 (E.D. La. May 13, 1996)
(“A preliminary injunction is not an appropriate
vehicle for trying to obtain relief that is not even sought
in the underlying action.”). The requested injunctive
relief plainly concerns matters outside the issues in the
even if Plaintiff could establish the propriety of his
request for preliminary injunctive relief, his request is
devoid of any allegation that he will suffer specific and
irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued in this
matter. 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”).
Finally, it is impossible to determine form the pleadings
precisely what Plaintiff's requested relief would entail,
preventing the court from determining what burden an
injunction would have on the Alabama Department of
Corrections and whether issuing one would harm the public
interest. For all of these reasons, issuing a preliminary
injunction is not warranted.
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 43) be DENIED;
2. This case be referred to the undersigned for additional
further ORDERED that on or before March 5,
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 a written objection 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 ...