Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00798/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00798-1/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 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DANIEL M. BARLEY, #260262, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-798-ID

) [WO]

)

BOB RILEY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by Daniel M.

Barley [“Barley”], a state inmate, in which he challenges the constitutionality of the

Alabama Community Notification Act, Ala. Code 1975 § 15-20-20 et seq. (1975, as

amended) [“the Act”], on a multitude of grounds. In his complaint, Barley seeks issuance

of a preliminary injunction preventing further application and enforcement of the Act.

Plaintiff's Complaint - Court Doc. No. 1 at 13. The court therefore construes this request

as a motion for preliminary injunction. On November 8, 2010, the defendants filed an

answer and special report in opposition to the complaint and all relief requested therein.

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).

th

This court may grant a preliminary injunction only if Barley demonstrates each of the

Case 2:10-cv-00798-WC Document 24 Filed 11/09/10 Page 1 of 4
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 injunction 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 Cate v.

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

th

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

th

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; All

Care Nursing Service, Inc. v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11

th

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 (5 Cir. 1975) (grant of preliminary

th

injunction “isthe 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

th

Cir. 1994);see also Siegel v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11 Cir. 2000) (noting that “the

th

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

2

Case 2:10-cv-00798-WC Document 24 Filed 11/09/10 Page 2 of 4
adjudicated.’ Northeastern Fl. Chapter of Ass'n of Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of

Jacksonville, Fl., 896 F.2d 1283, 1284 (11 Cir.1990).” Suntrust Bank v. Houghton

th

Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11 Cir. 2001).

th

II. DISCUSSION

The court hasthoroughly reviewed the plaintiff's complaint and the response thereto

filed by the defendants. Turning to the first prerequisite for issuance of preliminary

injunctive relief, the court finds that Barley, at this stage of the proceedings, has failed to

demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. Barley also

fails to demonstrate a substantial threat that he will suffer the requisite irreparable injury

absent issuance of a preliminary injunction. The third and fourth factors, balancing

potential harm to the parties and the public interest element, weigh more heavily in favor

of the defendants at this juncture. Thus, Barley has failed to meet his burden of

demonstrating the existence of each prerequisite necessary to warrant issuance of a

preliminary injunction.

III. 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 November 23, 2010 the parties may file objections to

3

Case 2:10-cv-00798-WC Document 24 Filed 11/09/10 Page 3 of 4
the Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the

Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be

considered by the DistrictCourt. The parties are further 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 addressed in the Recommendation 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 (5 Cir. 1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc.,

th

667 F.2d 33 (11 Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir.

th th

1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit

issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done this 9th day of November, 2010.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:10-cv-00798-WC Document 24 Filed 11/09/10 Page 4 of 4