Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00363/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00363-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JEFFERY ALLEN McCLELLAN, )

AIS #277145, ) 

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-363-WHA 

)

KARLA JONES, )

 )

 Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by 

Jeffery Allen McClellan (“McClellan”), a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Bullock 

Correctional Facility, on May 19, 2016. In the complaint, McClellan alleges that the 

defendant, the warden at Ventress Correctional Facility, failed to protect him from a sexual 

assault by another inmate, did not properly investigate the alleged assault and refused to 

provide him protection from the assailant after the attack. Doc. No. 1 at 3. 

On June 17, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for emergency injunction, which the 

court construed as a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking a transfer from Ventress. 

Doc. No. 8. The court directed the defendant to show cause why the motion for preliminary 

injunction should not be granted. Order of June 20, 2016 - Doc. No. 9. In response to this 

order, the defendant submitted McClellan’s “Inmate Movement History” which shows that 

Case 2:16-cv-00363-WHA-SRW Document 14 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 4
2

correctional officials transferred McClellan from Ventress to Bullock on June 30, 2016. 

Doc. No. 12-1 at 2. The defendant therefore argues that the motion for preliminary 

injunction is moot, as McClellan has received the relief requested in the motion. 

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 McClellan 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 injunctive relief 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 (1998); 

Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176 (11th Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht 

Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (11th Cir. 1983). “In this Circuit, [a] preliminary injunction is an 

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 (internal 

quotations omitted); All Care Nursing Service, Inc. v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., 

887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th 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 (5th Cir. 1975) (grant 

of preliminary injunction “is the exception rather than the rule,” and movant must clearly 

carry the burden of persuasion on each of the prerequisites). 

Case 2:16-cv-00363-WHA-SRW Document 14 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 4
3

III. DISCUSSION

The defendant’s response establishes that McClellan has been transferred from 

Ventress, the precise relief sought in the motion for preliminary injunction. Based on the 

foregoing, the court finds that Bullock cannot establish the second factor because there is 

not now a substantial threat that he will suffer the requisite irreparable injury absent 

issuance of a preliminary injunction. 

In light of the foregoing, the undersigned concludes that the motion for preliminary 

injunction is due to be denied, as Bullock has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating 

the existence of each prerequisite necessary to warrant issuance of preliminary injunctive 

relief and is likewise subject to denial as moot due to his transfer from Ventress.

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.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 22, 2016 the parties may file objections to the 

Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Recommendation to which the objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, 

or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

Case 2:16-cv-00363-WHA-SRW Document 14 Filed 07/08/16 Page 3 of 4
4

legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party 

to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 

conclusions 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); 11TH CIR. R. 3-

1. See Stein v. Lanning 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).

DONE, on this the 8th day of July, 2016.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

Susan Russ Walker

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:16-cv-00363-WHA-SRW Document 14 Filed 07/08/16 Page 4 of 4