Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-01115/USCOURTS-almd-2_06-cv-01115-2/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

JIMMY FRANK CAMERON, #105591, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-1115-MHT

) [WO]

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Jimmy Frank Cameron ["Cameron"], a

state inmate and frequent litigant in this court, challenges the failure of medical personnel

at the Bullock County Correctional Facility [“Bullock”] to provide him decompression

therapy for pinched nerves in his back. On June 13, 2007, Cameron filed a motion for

retaliatory injunction in which he makes the conclusory assertion that correctional officers

searched his cell and issued a behavior citation to him in retaliation for his legal activities.

The court therefore construes this document as a motion for preliminary injunction under

Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

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 (11 Cir. 2002). th

The four prerequisites Cameron must demonstrate to warrant issuance of a preliminary

injunction are: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat

Case 2:06-cv-01115-MHT-TFM Document 61 Filed 06/15/07 Page 1 of 5
2

of irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) that the harm to Cameron outweighs the

harm to the non-moving parties; and (4) that an injunction would be in the interest of the

public. Palmer, 287 F.3d at 1329; Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176 (11 Cir. 1983); Shatel th

Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (11 Cir. 1983). “[A] th

preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the

movant clearly established the burden of persuasion” as to each of the four prerequisites.

See McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11 Cir. 1998) (internal

th

citations and quotations omitted); see also 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 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 th

1163, 1176 (11 Cir. 2000) (noting that “the absence of a substantial likelihood of th

irreparable injury would, standing alone, make preliminary injunctive relief improper”).

II. DISCUSSION

In his motion for preliminary injunction, Cameron challenges adverse actions taken

against him by correctional officials since initiation of this cause of action. He seeks

issuance of an injunction that prevents "[p]unitive debasing or otherwise penologically

unjustified searches of ... [his] living quarters." Court Doc. No. 59 at 2. 

Case 2:06-cv-01115-MHT-TFM Document 61 Filed 06/15/07 Page 2 of 5
3

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

court considers whether Cameron has proven a substantial likelihood of success on the

merits. Having reviewed Cameron’s request for preliminary injunctive relief and relevant

evidentiary materials filed by defendants in several cases filed by Cameron, the court

concludes that Cameron has failed to carry his burden. Other than self-serving, conclusory

allegations of constitutional violations, Cameron presents no proof or objective evidence

that the actions about which he complains violated or are now violating his constitutional

rights. Essentially, the court has nothing other than Cameron’s mere conclusions of law

and unsupported factual allegations as to whether the actions challenged in his motion for

preliminary injunction ran afoul of the Constitution. Cameron has therefore failed to

establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. 

Cameron also fails to demonstrate that he will suffer the requisite irreparable injury

absent issuance of a preliminary injunction. As noted, Cameron provides no proof or

objective evidence in support of his allegations concerning the actions about which he

complains. The third factor, balancing potential harm to the parties, is basically a neutral

factor at this juncture. Finally, the pleadings before the court are devoid of any evidence

which shows that issuance of an injunction would serve the public interest. Thus, Cameron

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

Case 2:06-cv-01115-MHT-TFM Document 61 Filed 06/15/07 Page 3 of 5
 The plaintiff is advised that if he seeks to challenge the alleged retaliatory actions referenced in his 1

motion for preliminary injunction he may do so by filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the proper medical

defendants at the Bullock County Correctional Facility and a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus

relief against members of the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles. 

4

to warrant issuance of a preliminary injunction.1

III. CONCLUSION

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

1. The motion for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff on June 13, 2007

(Court Doc. No. 59) be DENIED. 

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

It is further

ORDERED that on or before June 28, 2007 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 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 covered in

the report 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 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds

Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d th

Case 2:06-cv-01115-MHT-TFM Document 61 Filed 06/15/07 Page 4 of 5
5

1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former th

Fifth Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done this 15th day of June, 2007.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01115-MHT-TFM Document 61 Filed 06/15/07 Page 5 of 5