Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00939/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00939-0/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

COREY JOHNSON, #201367, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-939-MHT

) [WO]

)

GARY HETZEL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by Corey

Johnson [“Johnson”], a state inmate, challenging conditions of confinement at the

Easterling Correctional Facility. In his complaint, Johnson seeks immediate injunctive

relief to alleviate the alleged unconstitutional conditions to which he is subjected. Doc.

No. 1 at 4. The court construes this request as a motion for preliminary injunction under

Rule 65(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon review of the motion for preliminary

injunction, the court concludes that this motion is 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).

th

This court may grant a preliminary injunction only if Johnson demonstrates each of the

Case 2:12-cv-00939-MHT-TFM Document 6 Filed 10/31/12 Page 1 of 4
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 Corp.,

th

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

th

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 Memorial Hospital, Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11

th

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 (5 Cir. 1975) (grant of preliminary

th

injunction “isthe 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 (11

th

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

th

absence of a substantial likelihood of irreparable injury would, standing alone, make

preliminary injunctive relief improper”). “‘The chief function of a preliminary injunction

2

Case 2:12-cv-00939-MHT-TFM Document 6 Filed 10/31/12 Page 2 of 4
is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the controversy can be fully and fairly

adjudicated.’ Northeastern Fl. Chapter of Ass'n of Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of

Jacksonville, Fl., 896 F.2d 1283, 1284 (11 Cir.1990).” Suntrust Bank v. Houghton

th

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 Johnson has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the

merits of his claims. Johnson also fails to demonstrate a substantial threat that he will

suffer the requisite irreparable injury absent issuance of a preliminary injunction. The third

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

defendants as issuance of an injunction would impede the ability of correctional officials

to manage the daily operation of the Easterling Correctional Facility. Finally, the public

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

hasfailed to meet his burden of demonstrating the existence of each prerequisite necessary

to warrant issuance of a preliminary injunction.

IV. CONCLUSION

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

motion for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff be DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that on or before November 15, 2012 the parties may file objections to

3

Case 2:12-cv-00939-MHT-TFM Document 6 Filed 10/31/12 Page 3 of 4
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.

th th

1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit

issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done this 31st day of October, 2012.

/s/Terry F. Morer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:12-cv-00939-MHT-TFM Document 6 Filed 10/31/12 Page 4 of 4