Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00721/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-00721-1/pdf.json

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

---

Ray was recently transferred to the Limestone Correctional Facility located in Harvest, 1

Alabama. (See Doc. No. 8.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

 ______________________________

ROBERT EARL RAY, JR., #136 712 *

Plaintiff, *

 v. * 2:07-CV-721-WKW

 (WO)

TROY KING - ATTORNEY GENERAL, * 

et al.,

Defendants. *

 ______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Robert Ray ["Ray"], filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on August 31, 2007.

When he filed this complaint, Ray was incarcerated at the West Carroll Detention Center in

Epps, Louisiana. In the complaint, Ray seeks transfer by a United States Marshal to "the 1

nearest federal facility in Alabama closest to his family who is located in Limestone County

Alabama, until Alabama is able to place petitioner in a facility that is not overcrowded and

where there are no unconstitutional living conditions. . . " (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) Ray requests

issuance of a preliminary injunction ordering such transfer and prohibiting the Alabama

Department of Corrections from returning him to the state prison system. The court,

therefore, construes this document to contain a motion for preliminary injunction under Rule

Case 2:07-cv-00721-WKW-WC Document 11 Filed 09/05/07 Page 1 of 6
2

65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, the court recommends that

Ray's motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied.

I. 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 (11 Cir. 2002). The four th

prerequisites which Ray must demonstrate to warrant issuance of a preliminary injunction

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 Ray outweighs the harm to the

non-moving parties; and (4) that an injunction would be in the interest of the public. Id.;

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

Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (11 Cir. 1983). “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and th

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) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also Texas th

v. Seatrain Int'l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 179 (5 Cir. 1975) (grant of preliminary injunction “is th

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 (11 Cir. 1994); see also Siegel th

Case 2:07-cv-00721-WKW-WC Document 11 Filed 09/05/07 Page 2 of 6
3

v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11 Cir. 2000) (noting that “the absence of a substantial th

likelihood of irreparable injury would, standing alone, make preliminary injunctive relief

improper”).

II. DISCUSSION

In his motion for preliminary injunction, Ray seeks transfer to a federal facility and

requests that the Alabama Department of Corrections be prohibited from returning him to a

state correctional facility. He asserts that these actions are necessary to prevent his

placement in an overcrowded and potentially dangerous state prison system. 

Turning to the first prerequisite for issuance of preliminary injunctive relief, the court

considers whether Ray 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 Ray fails to carry his burden. Specifically, prisoners do not have

a constitutional right to remain in or be transferred to a correctional institution of their own

choosing. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976); 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” ); see also Beltran v. Smith, 458 U.S. 1303,

1305 (1982) (in case where federal inmate objected to prison transfer because he felt safer

Case 2:07-cv-00721-WKW-WC Document 11 Filed 09/05/07 Page 3 of 6
4

and more secure at current institution, court denied inmate's application for emergency stay

while appeal from denial of motion for preliminary injunctive relief was pending in court of

appeals because “[t]he Attorney General has authority to transfer [the inmate] from one

facility to another in his discretion.”). Ray likewise fails to demonstrate that he will suffer

the requisite irreparable injury absent issuance of a preliminary injunction. His speculative

allegations concerning the conditions under which he may be housed in a state prison facility

located within the State of Alabama is not the type of irreparable harm justifying the issuance

of a preliminary injunction. Any problems caused by the housing of Ray at a state penal

facility can be accomplished through the filing of a complaint in the federal court in which

the institution which houses Ray is located. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974)

(internal quotation omitted) (this "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.").

Finally, with regard to the third and fourth factors, Ray fails to show that issuance of

an injunction would serve the public interest, and the pleadings before the court are devoid

of any evidence which shows that issuance of an injunction would serve the public interest.

In light of the fact that Ray has no right to be housed in a particular institution, the absence

of irreparable harm, and the deference accorded prison administrators in prison assignments,

Ray is not entitled to a preliminary injunction preventing his transfer to an Alabama

Case 2:07-cv-00721-WKW-WC Document 11 Filed 09/05/07 Page 4 of 6
5

Department of Corrections' facility.

III. CONCLUSION

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

1. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Ray on August 13, 2007 (Doc. No.

1) be DENIED; and 

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

It is further

ORDERED that on or before September 17, 2007 the parties may file objections to

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

Recommendation to which a party is objecting. 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 in the Recommendation

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 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d th

1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former th

Case 2:07-cv-00721-WKW-WC Document 11 Filed 09/05/07 Page 5 of 6
6

Fifth Circuit issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done, this 5th day of September 2007.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00721-WKW-WC Document 11 Filed 09/05/07 Page 6 of 6