Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_12-cv-00480/USCOURTS-almd-3_12-cv-00480-0/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

EASTERN DIVISION

THOMAS FRANKLIN MAY, III, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-480-WHA

) [WO]

)

JAY JONES, 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 Thomas

Franklin May, III [“May”], a pre-trial detainee confined on a capital murder charge, in

which he challenges actions taken against him at the Lee County Detention Center. In his

complaint, May seeks a preliminary injunction requiring the defendants to immediately

cease those actions he deems violative of his rights and permit his transfer to the Russell

County Jail (Doc. 1 at 8). 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 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

Case 3:12-cv-00480-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 06/15/12 Page 1 of 4
This court may grant a preliminary injunction only if May 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 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 3:12-cv-00480-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 06/15/12 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 May failsto demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his

claimsraised in the complaint pending before this court. With respect to the second factor,

May fails to allege or demonstrate the existence of 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 the requested injunction would adversely impact the ability of

jail personnel to effectively manage the daily operations of the Lee County Detention

Center. Finally, the public interest element of the equation is, at best, a neutral factor at

this juncture. Thus, May 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.

3

Case 3:12-cv-00480-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 06/15/12 Page 3 of 4
It is further

ORDERED that on or before June 29, 2012, 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.

th th

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

issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done this 15 day of June, 2012.

th

/s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 3:12-cv-00480-WHA-CSC Document 8 Filed 06/15/12 Page 4 of 4