Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00721/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00721-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DARRELLE FORTNER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:12-cv-721-MEF-SRW

(WO—Do not publish)

GARY HETZEL, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on Darrelle Fortner’s Complaint. (ECF No. 1.)

Fortner, a pro se prisoner housed in the Easterling Correctional Facility, asks for a

temporary restraining order to remedy a number of alleged wrongs. Fortner claims that

the correctional facility has (1) failed to provide him with outside exercise time; (2)

denied him legal supplies; (3) subjected him to excessive heat; (4) denied him supplies to

clean his cell; and (5) failed to follow its internal procedures in a number of ways.

Because Fortner brings suit as a pro se litigant, the Court must construe his complaint

liberally. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). 

Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure restricts a court’s ability to grant a

temporary restraining order. To overcome the rule’s restrictions, a plaintiff must make

clear from “specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate

1

Case 2:12-cv-00721-MEF-SRW Document 3 Filed 08/22/12 Page 1 of 3
and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).

The Eleventh Circuit has held that this requires the plaintiff to show the following: (1) a

substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered

unless the injunction issues; (3) that the threatened injury to the moving party outweighs

whatever damages the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if

issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Palmer v. Braun, 287

F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002).1

 A temporary restraining order is “an extraordinary and

drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishe[s] the burden of

persuasion” as to each of these four elements. McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d

1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

A temporary restraining order is a “drastic remedy” because a court issues it

without giving notice to the opposing party. In other words, denying a party the chance to

be heard requires the moving party to make a persuasive showing of necessity. With this

in mind, Fortner’s request for a temporary restraining order fails for two reasons. First, he

does not include specific allegations about what injury he’ll suffer if the Court denies to

him temporary relief. As a result, he cannot show that he’ll suffer irreparable injury

unless an injunction issues. Second, and along these same lines, his complaint gives no

indication that he’ll suffer some sort of imminent harm absent a temporary restraining

order. This too undercuts his request: by failing to show he is about to suffer imminent

1

 Rule 65 also has a procedural component. But since Fortner cannot meet the rule’s substantive

standards, the Court need not concern itself with addressing the procedural issues.

2

Case 2:12-cv-00721-MEF-SRW Document 3 Filed 08/22/12 Page 2 of 3
harm, he has failed to give the Court a persuasive reason for dispensing with the notice

usually given to adverse parties.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Fortner’s request for a temporary

restraining order is more appropriately considered a request for a preliminary injunction

and a claim for permanent injunctive relief. Accordingly, the motion for a temporary

restraining order found in Fortner’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that this case is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for action or

recommendation on all pretrial matters.

DONE this the 22nd day of August, 2012.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 2:12-cv-00721-MEF-SRW Document 3 Filed 08/22/12 Page 3 of 3