United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Turner, an indigent state inmate currently incarcerated at
the Kilby Correctional Facility, initiated this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action on November 6, 2019. In this civil action,
Turner alleges a violation of his civil rights during his
incarceration in the state prison system. Specifically,
Turner contends that the defendant used excessive force
against him on July 6, 2019 during a prior term of
confinement at Staton Correctional Facility. Doc. 1 at 2-3.
In his request for relief, Turner generally seeks issuance of
a preliminary injunction. Doc 1 at 4.
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 Turner demonstrates each of
the following prerequisites: (1) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat irreparable
injury will occur absent issuance of the injunction; (3) the
threatened injury outweighs the potential damage the
requested injunctive relief may cause the non-moving parties;
and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public
interest. Palmer, 287 F.3d at 1329;
McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301,
1306 (1998); Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176
(11th Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta
Lumber and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (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 omitted); All Care Nursing Service, Inc. v.
Bethesda Memorial Hospital, 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 on each of
than requesting issuance of a preliminary injunction, Turner
presents no facts in support of this request for relief nor
does he set forth any basis for issuance of such relief.
Thus, upon consideration of Turner's motion for
preliminary injunction and the requisite elements for
issuance of preliminary injunctive relief, the undersigned
finds that the motion for preliminary injunction is due to be
as to the first prerequisite for issuance of preliminary
injunctive relief, the court finds that Turner has failed to
demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits
of his claims. Turner likewise fails to establish a
substantial threat that he will suffer the requisite
irreparable injury absent issuance of the requested
preliminary injunction. The third factor, balancing potential
harm to the parties, weighs more heavily in favor of the
defendants as issuance of the injunction would have an unduly
adverse effect on the ability of prison personnel to exercise
their professional judgment in determining the appropriate
manner in which to provide security and discipline inmates
for their disruptive behavior. Finally, the public interest
element of the equation is, at best, a neutral factor at this
juncture. Thus, Turner has failed to meet his burden of
demonstrating the existence of each prerequisite necessary to
warrant issuance of preliminary injunctive relief.
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:
1. The motion for preliminary injunction filed by the
plaintiff be DENIED.
2. This case be referred back the undersigned for additional
before December 26, 2019, the parties may
file objections to this Recommendation. The parties must
specifically identify the factual findings and legal
conclusions contained in the Recommendation to which his
objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive, or general
objections will not be considered by the court.
to file written objections to the proposed factual findings
and legal conclusions set forth in the Recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge shall bar a party from a de novo
determination by the District Court of these factual findings
and legal conclusions 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 Trust Co. v.
Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir.
1993) (“When the magistrate provides such notice and a
party still fails to object to the findings of fact [and law]
and those ...