Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00361/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00361-3/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES EDWARD WALLACE, #207922, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-361-MEF

) [WO]

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Wallace [“Wallae”], a state inmate, in which he challenges the seating provided for

handicapped inmates on the Native American ceremonial grounds at the Bullock Correctional

Facility. On September 13, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction in

which he seeks issuance of injunction with respect to policies regarding the manner in which

medical profiles are issued to inmates.

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). This court

th

may grant a preliminary injunction only if Wallace 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

Case 2:10-cv-00361-MEF-SRW Document 47 Filed 09/14/11 Page 1 of 4
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

th

Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (11 Cir. 1983).

th

“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; All Care Nursing Service, Inc. v. Bethesda

Memorial Hospital, Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11 Cir. 1989) (a preliminary injunction is

th

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 injunction “is the exception rather than the rule,”

th

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

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 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).”

th

Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11 Cir. 2001).

th

2

Case 2:10-cv-00361-MEF-SRW Document 47 Filed 09/14/11 Page 2 of 4
II. DISCUSSION

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

finds that Wallace has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits

of his claims. Moreover, the requested injunctive relief is wholly unrelated to the merits of

the claims pending before the court in this cause of action. Wallace also fails to demonstrate

a substantial threat that he will suffer the requisite irreparable injury with respect to such

claims absent issuance of the requested preliminary injunction. The third factor, balancing

potential harm to the parties, weighs more heavily in favor of the defendants as issuance of

the injunction would adversely impact the daily operation of the Bullock Correctional

Facility. Finally, the public interest element of the equation is a neutral factor at this

juncture. Thus, Wallace has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the existence of each

prerequisite necessary to warrant issuance of a preliminary injunction.

1

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 September 28, 2011, the parties may file objections to

The plaintiff is advised that if he seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the actions referenced

1

in the motion for preliminary injunction he may do so by filing a separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with

this court. 

3

Case 2:10-cv-00361-MEF-SRW Document 47 Filed 09/14/11 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 District Court. 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., 667 F.2d 33

th

(11 Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981, en banc),

th th

adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued prior to

September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 14 day of September, 2011.

th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:10-cv-00361-MEF-SRW Document 47 Filed 09/14/11 Page 4 of 4