Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00391/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00391-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

BARRY TRIMBLE, #139540, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-391-MEF

) [WO]

)

RICHARD ALLEN, 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 Barry Trimble

[“Trimble”], an indigent state inmate, in which he challenges the ceremonial

accommodations provided to Native American inmates at the Easterling Correctional

Facility. On October 3, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction in which

he seeks issuance of an injunction “allow[ing] plaintiff to use tobacco in his religious

ceremonies or in the alternative issue an order to transfer to a facility in which the use of

tobacco is allowed.” Court Doc. No. 25 at 1.

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

th

may grant a preliminary injunction only if Trimble demonstrates each of the following

Case 2:11-cv-00391-WKW-TFM Document 26 Filed 10/11/11 Page 1 of 4
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

th

Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (11 Cir. 1983).

th

“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

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

th

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,”

th

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 Cir. 1994); see also Siegel v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163,

th

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

th

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.’ Northeastern Fl. Chapter of Ass'n of Gen.

2

Case 2:11-cv-00391-WKW-TFM Document 26 Filed 10/11/11 Page 2 of 4
Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, Fl., 896 F.2d 1283, 1284 (11 Cir.1990).”

th

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 Trimble has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits

of his claims. Trimble also fails to demonstrate a substantial threat that he will suffer a

requisite irreparable injury with respect to such claims 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 adversely impact the

daily operation of the Easterling Correctional Facility. Finally, the public interest element

of the equation is a neutral factor at this juncture. Thus, Trimble has failed 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:

1. The motion for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff be DENIED.

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

It is further

ORDERED that on or before October 28, 2011 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the

3

Case 2:11-cv-00391-WKW-TFM Document 26 Filed 10/11/11 Page 3 of 4
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., 667 F.2d 33

th

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

th th

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

September 30, 1981.

Done this 11th day of October, 2011.

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:11-cv-00391-WKW-TFM Document 26 Filed 10/11/11 Page 4 of 4