Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01216/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01216-0/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

SIDNEY JAMES CLAYTON, )

AIS #224797, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:05-CV-1216-WKW

) [WO]

)

J. C. GILES, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Sidney James Clayton [“Clayton”], a

state inmate, asserts that the defendants have denied him placement in protective custody

despite assertions of threats to his safety. The defendants filed a special report supported

by relevant evidentiary materials addressing Clayton’s claim for relief. On March 9, 2006,

Clayton filed a motion of injunction in which he continues to complain of fear for his safety

due to threats and harassment. The court construes this document as a motion for

preliminary injunction under Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Upon consideration of the motion for preliminary injunction and in light of the

evidentiary materials submitted by the defendants, the court concludes that this motion is

due to be denied.

Case 2:05-cv-01216-WKW-WC Document 12 Filed 03/14/06 Page 1 of 4
2

DISCUSSION

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 which Clayton must demonstrate to warrant issuance of a

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

substantial threat of irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) that the harm to Clayton

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. th

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

“[A] 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) th

(internal 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 th

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” will 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

Case 2:05-cv-01216-WKW-WC Document 12 Filed 03/14/06 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Clayton does not present any evidence of a substantial likelihood of success on the

merits. He also fails to establish that upon balancing the equities of the parties issuance of

an injunction would be in the public interest. The pleadings before the court therefore fail

to establish that Clayton meets each of the prerequisites necessary for issuance of a

preliminary injunction. 

CONCLUSION

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

1. The motion for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff on March 9, 2006 be

DENIED. 

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

It is further

ORDERED that on or before March 24, 2006 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

Case 2:05-cv-01216-WKW-WC Document 12 Filed 03/14/06 Page 3 of 4
4

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

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 14th day of March, 2006.

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01216-WKW-WC Document 12 Filed 03/14/06 Page 4 of 4