Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00344/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00344-0/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

JUSTIN BLAKE SHIREY, #264 423, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:14-CV-344-MEF

) [WO]

SANDRA GILES, WARDEN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Bullock Correctional Facility in Union Springs,

Alabama, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on May 12, 2014. He alleges that on February

19, 2014, Defendants placed him in the mental health unit at the Bullock Correctional

Facility even though he is not mentally ill. This housing assignment, Plaintiff complains,

exposes him to unreasonable risks of harm because he is exposed to psychotropic drugs by

medical personnel despite the fact he does not take any medication and is asked to take nonprescribed medication. Plaintiff requests issuance of a preliminary injunction directing his

removal from the mental health unit of the Bullock Correctional Facility. The court

considers Plaintiff's request as a motion for preliminary injunction under Rule 65, Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, the court recommends that Plaintiff's

motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied.

Case 2:14-cv-00344-WHA-TFM Document 6 Filed 05/23/14 Page 1 of 5
I. 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). The four

th

prerequisites which Plaintiff must demonstrate 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 Plaintiff 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. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (11

th th

Cir. 1983). “[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” 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”).

2

Case 2:14-cv-00344-WHA-TFM Document 6 Filed 05/23/14 Page 2 of 5
Turning to the first prerequisite for issuance of preliminary injunctive relief, the court

considers whether Plaintiff has proven a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

Having thoroughly reviewed the request for a preliminary injunction and in light of

applicable federal law, the court concludes that Plaintiff fails to carry his burden.

Specifically, the Constitution itself does not give prisoners an interest in being classified to

a particular area within a penal facility. Cf. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215, 224 (1976)

(“The Constitution does not require that the State have more than one prison for convicted

felons; nor does it guarantee that the convicted prisoner will be placed in any particular

prison if, as is likely, the State has more than one correctional institution.”); Clark v.

Browers, 2005 WL 1926088, at *3 (E.D.Mo. Aug. 10, 2005) (inmate's motion for temporary

restraining order or preliminary injunction that did not seek to enjoin any illegal act of

defendants, but instead requested transfer to another correctional facility, denied because

“plaintiff does not have a right to be held in the institution of his choosing” ). Plaintiff has

also not alleged that he will suffer specific and irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued.

Additionally, it is impossible to determine what Plaintiff's requested relief would entail

exactly preventing the court from determining what burden an injunction would have on the

Alabama Department of Corrections and whether issuing one would harm the public interest.

The undersigned, therefore, concludes that Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction

should be denied.

3

Case 2:14-cv-00344-WHA-TFM Document 6 Filed 05/23/14 Page 3 of 5
II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 1) be DENIED.

It is further the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that this case be referred

back to the undersigned for additional proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before June 9, 2014, Plaintiff may file an objection to the

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised this

Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection 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 issues covered in the report and shall bar a 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 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the

decisions of the former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down prior to the close of

4

Case 2:14-cv-00344-WHA-TFM Document 6 Filed 05/23/14 Page 4 of 5
business on September 30, 1981.

Done, this 23 day of May 2014.

rd

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00344-WHA-TFM Document 6 Filed 05/23/14 Page 5 of 5