Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00648/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00648-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RODNEY ALVERSON, #132431, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-648-WKW

) [WO] 

)

MS. COPELAND, et al., )

)

 Defendants )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This cause of action is pending before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by

Rodney Alverson [“Alverson”], an indigent state inmate presently incarcerated at the Draper 

Correctional Facility [“Draper”]. In this case, Alverson challenges the conditions of confinement

and various adverse actions taken against him at Draper. Alverson filed motions for preliminary

injunction on July 17, 2014 (Doc. No. 17), July 18, 2014 (Doc. No. 22) and July 24, 2014 (Doc. No.

24) in which he seeks preliminary injunctive relief against the correctional defendants for alleged

retaliatory actions in refusing to transfer him from Draper, placing him in the restricted privileges

dorm, assigning him to the farm squad, failing to provide him an incentive package and issuing him

a behavior citation and major disciplinary. The court required a response to these motions from the

correctional defendants. In their response, the correctional defendants deny they retaliated against

Alverson and maintain that no action has been taken against Alverson as retaliation for the exercise

of any constitutional right. Specifically, the correctional defendants assert that Alverson is not

entitled to a transfer from Draper and further maintain that the actions about which he complains

Case 2:14-cv-00648-WKW-TFM Document 40 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 4
occurred due to his insubordinate behavior. As for the disciplinary action, the defendants argue any

injunctive relief is now moot as the disciplinary has been expunged from Alverson's record. 

Upon review of the motions for preliminary injunction and the response to the motions filed

by the correctional defendants, the court concludes that the plaintiff’s motions for preliminary

injunction are due to be denied. 

 II. 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 (11 Cir. 2002). This court may grant a

th

preliminary injunction only if Alverson 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 injunction 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 Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176 (11 Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht th

Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (11 Cir. 1983). “In this Circuit, ‘[a] preliminary injunction is an th

extraordinaryand 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 Memorial Hospital, Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11 Cir. 1989) (a preliminary th

injunction is issued only when “drastic relief” is necessary); Texas v. Seatrain Int’l, S.A., 518 F.2d

175, 179 (5 Cir. 1975) (grant of preliminary injunction “is the exception rather than the rule,” and th

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

2

Case 2:14-cv-00648-WKW-TFM Document 40 Filed 08/08/14 Page 2 of 4
party’s ability to establish any of the other elements. Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332,

1342 (11 Cir. 1994); see also Siegel v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11 Cir. 2000) (noting that th th

“the absence of a substantial likelihood of irreparable injurywould, standing alone, make preliminary

injunctive reliefimproper”). “‘The chieffunction of a preliminaryinjunction is to preserve the status

quo until the merits of the controversycan be fully and fairlyadjudicated.’ Northeastern Fl. Chapter

of Ass'n of Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, Fl., 896 F.2d 1283, 1284 (11th

Cir.1990).” Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11 Cir. 2001). th

III. DISCUSSION

Turning to the first prerequisite for issuance of preliminary injunctive relief, the court finds

that Alverson has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his

claims. Alverson likewise fails to establish a substantial threat that he will suffer the requisite

irreparable injury absent issuance of the requested preliminary injunctions. The third factor,

balancing potential harm to the parties, weighs more heavily in favor of the correctional defendants 

as issuance of the injunctions would adversely impact the ability of correctional officials to

effectivelymanage inmates who theybelieve commit acts of insubordination or other rule violations. 

Finally, the public interest element of the equation is, at best, a neutral factor at this juncture. Thus,

Alverson has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the existence of each prerequisite necessary

to warrant issuance of preliminary injunctive relief.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. The motions for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff on July 17, 2014 (Doc. No.

3

Case 2:14-cv-00648-WKW-TFM Document 40 Filed 08/08/14 Page 3 of 4
17), July 18, 2014 (Doc. No. 22) and July 24, 2014 (Doc. No. 24) be DENIED.

 2. This case be referred back the undersigned for additional proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before August 25, 2014 the parties may file objections to the 

Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the Recommendation

objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. 

The parties are further advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and,

therefore, it is not appealable. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings in the

Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues

addressed in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings

in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest

injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc.,

th

667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en th th

banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued prior to

September 30, 1981.

Done this 8th day of August, 2014.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:14-cv-00648-WKW-TFM Document 40 Filed 08/08/14 Page 4 of 4