United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STEPHEN M. DOYLE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on August 14,
2019, challenging matters associated with his disciplinary
proceedings held in July 2019 including Defendants'
failure to comply with agency regulations regarding inmate
disciplinary hearings. Plaintiff's complaint contains a
request for a preliminary injunction. Doc. 1 at 4. 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 request for preliminary injunctive relief
reflects he has not made the demanding showing required for
this extraordinary form of relief. 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.”). The third
factor, balancing potential harm to the parties, weighs more
heavily in favor of Defendants. Regarding the fourth factor,
it is impossible to determine what Plaintiff's requested
relief would entail exactly 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. Issuing a preliminary
injunction is not warranted.
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 1) be DENIED; and
case be referred to the undersigned for additional
that on or before September 18, 2019,
Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff objects. Frivolous,
conclusive or general objections will not be considered by
the District Court. This Recommendation is not a final order
and, therefore, it is not appealable.
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 ...