Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00014/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00014-1/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

DAVID O. OLIVER, #285 230, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:13-CV-14-WKW

 ) [WO]

VICTOR NAPIER, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff David O. Oliver’s Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order (“TRO”). Mr. Oliver is an inmate incarcerated at Kilby

Correctional Facility located in Mt. Meigs, Alabama. As grounds for a TRO, he

assertsthat the warden and two named correctional officers are “constantly harassing

[him] because of [his] filing this Complaint. . . .” (Doc. # 20, at 1.) 

A temporary restraining order may be issued without notice only if

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that

immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the

movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and

(B) the movant[ ] . . . certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice

and the reasons why it should not be required.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). A temporary restraining order also requires the same four

elements as a preliminary injunction, and the movant bears the burden of

Case 2:13-cv-00014-WKW-TFM Document 22 Filed 04/17/13 Page 1 of 2
demonstrating that they are present. See Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles,

275 F.3d 1032, 1034–35 (11th Cir. 2001). 

1

Mr. Oliver has not demonstrated the requirements for Rule 65(b) relief. First,

Mr. Oliver’s motion does not contain sworn testimony. Second, Mr. Oliver has not

shown or argued that he will suffer immediate and irreparable injury if Defendants

are given an opportunity to respond to the motion. Third, Mr. Oliver has not

demonstrated that a TRO is necessary to prevent irreparable injury. Fourth, he has

not certified in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should

not be required. Fifth, he has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood ofsuccess on

the merits. 

Accordingly, it is ORDEREDthat theMotion for Temporary Restraining Order

(Doc. # 20) is DENIED. 

DONE this 17th day of April, 2013.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 These four elements are “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 1

(2) irreparable injury absent an injunction; (3) the injury outweighs whatever damage an

injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) an injunction is not adverse to the public

interest.” Citizens for Police Accountability Political Comm. v. Browning, 572 F.3d 1213, 1217

(11th Cir. 2009).

2

Case 2:13-cv-00014-WKW-TFM Document 22 Filed 04/17/13 Page 2 of 2