Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00065/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00065-0/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

DENNIS DIFFER, #236 916, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-65-WHA

) [WO]

M. SMITH, )

)

Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction under Rule 65, Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. He seeks to enjoin Defendant Smith from contacting certain correctional

officials employed by the Ventress Correctional Facility for the purpose of conspiring to

cover up material facts or for the purpose of provoking wrongdoing toward Plaintiff and/or

potential material witnesses, including retaliating against them. He further requests that 1

Defendant Smith be enjoined from interfering in any way with Plaintiff's ability to conduct

legal research and/or obtain pertinent legal material. Upon consideration of the motion for 2

preliminary injunction, the court concludes that this motion is due to be denied.

The named defendant is no longer employed at the Ventress Correctional Facility. 1

The court notes that Plaintiff appears to seek preliminary injunctive relief from persons not

2

parties to this action. A review of the docket in this matter reflects that the sole defendant named in the

complaint is Michael Smith.

Case 2:12-cv-00065-WHA-SRW Document 34 Filed 02/11/13 Page 1 of 4
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 ofsuccess 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

2

Case 2:12-cv-00065-WHA-SRW Document 34 Filed 02/11/13 Page 2 of 4
injury would, standing alone, make preliminary injunctive relief improper”).

The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and

finds that he fails to meet each of the prerequisites for the issuance of a preliminary

injunction. Plaintiff has not alleged that he will suffer specific and irreparable harm if an

injunction is not issued. Additionally, granting the requested relief would require entry of

an order preventing a "person[] from doing something entirely speculative in nature" as the

named defendant has not yet engaged in the conduct about which Plaintiff complains. Bieros

v. Nichola, 857 F. Supp. 445 (E.D. Pa. 1994); see also Dice v. Clinicorp, Inc., 887 F. Supp.

803, 809 (W.D. Pa.1995) (“the claimed injury cannot merely be possible, speculative or

remote.”). Furthermore, it is impossible to determine what exactlyPlaintiff's requested relief

would entail, which prevents the court from determining what burden an injunction would

have on the Alabama Department of Corrections and whether its issuance would harm the

public interest. The undersigned, therefore, concludes that Plaintiff’s request for a

preliminary injunction should be denied.

 II. CONCLUSION

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

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 33) be DENIED. 

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

back to the undersigned for additional proceedings.

3

Case 2:12-cv-00065-WHA-SRW Document 34 Filed 02/11/13 Page 3 of 4
It is further

ORDERED that on or before February 25, 2013, the parties 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. 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 and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report 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 (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

business on September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 11th day of February, 2013.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

4

Case 2:12-cv-00065-WHA-SRW Document 34 Filed 02/11/13 Page 4 of 4