United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GRAY
M. BORDEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pending
before the court is Plaintiff's request for a preliminary
injunction. Doc. 34. 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 that he could
not mail home by December 21, 2018 and from retaining certain
items of religious property. Upon review, the court concludes
that the motion for preliminary injunction is due to be
denied.
I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The
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 & 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
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) (observing 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)).
II.
DISCUSSION
The
court has reviewed Plaintiff's request for a preliminary
injunction and finds the motion 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 a matter outside the issues in the
complaint.
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.[1] 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.[2] 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 precisely what Plaintiff's
requested relief would entail, preventing the court from
determining the 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, a
preliminary injunction is not appropriate.
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 34) be DENIED;
and
2. This case be referred to the undersigned for additional
proceedings.
It is
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.
Failure
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 ...