Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00307/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00307-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

KENDRICK COOK-BEY, #174 046, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-307-WHA

 ) [WO]

CAMILLE LUCKIE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff filed a pleading on June 28, 2016, which the court considers to contain a request 

for a preliminary injunction. Doc. 12. He seeks to enjoin Defendants from withholding, delaying, 

and/or rejecting his mail in violation of agency regulations. Doc. 12-2 at 1–5. Upon review, the 

court concludes the motion for preliminary injunction 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 (11th Cir. 2002). This court may grant 

a preliminary injunction only if Plaintiff demonstrates each of these prerequisites: (1) a substantial 

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) 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. 

Id.; McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998); Cate v. Oldham, 707 

F.2d 1176, 1185 (11th Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 

1352, 1354-55 (11th Cir. 1983). “In this Circuit, [a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and 

Case 2:16-cv-00307-WHA-GMB Document 14 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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 (internal quotations omitted); All Care 

Nursing Service, Inc. v. Bethesda Mem’l Hosp. Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding 

that a preliminary injunction is issued only when “drastic relief” is necessary); Texas v. Seatrain 

Int’l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 1975) (granting of preliminary injunction “is the 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 (11th Cir. 1994); see also Siegel v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 

(11th Cir. 2000) (noting that “the absence of a substantial likelihood of irreparable 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.’” Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11th Cir. 

2001) (quoting Northeastern Fla. Chapter of Assoc. Gen. Contractors of America v. City of 

Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283, 1284 (11th Cir. 1990)).

III. DISCUSSION

The court’s review of Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief reflects he has not made the 

demanding showing required for this extraordinary form of relief. Even if Plaintiff could establish 

the propriety of his request for preliminary injunctive relief, his request is devoid of any allegation 

he will suffer specific and irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued. To establish irreparable 

injury Plaintiff must show he will suffer harm that “cannot be redressed by a legal or an equitable 

remedy” through the ordinary course of litigation. See Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight, 

Inc., 882 F.2d 797, 801 (3d Cir. 1989) (“The preliminary injunction must be the only way of 

Case 2:16-cv-00307-WHA-GMB Document 14 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 4
3

protecting the plaintiff from harm”); Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974) (internal 

quotation omitted) (noting that the “possibility that adequate compensatory or other corrective 

relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation, [also] weighs heavily 

against a claim of irreparable harm”). The third factor, balancing potential harm to the parties, 

also weighs more heavily in favor of Defendants. Regarding the fourth factor, it is impossible to 

determine precisely what Plaintiff’s requested relief would entail, preventing the court from 

determining what burden the requested injunction would have on the Alabama Department of 

Corrections and whether issuing it would harm the public interest. Issuing a preliminary injunction 

in this case is not warranted.

IV. CONCLUSION

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

1. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 12) be DENIED; and 

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

It is further ORDERED that on or before July 15, 2016, the parties may file an objection 

to this Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings and 

legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, 

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on 

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon 

grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust 

Case 2:16-cv-00307-WHA-GMB Document 14 Filed 07/01/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 

F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

DONE on this 1st day of July, 2016. 

/s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITES STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00307-WHA-GMB Document 14 Filed 07/01/16 Page 4 of 4