Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00454/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00454-2/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

KENNETH WAYNE HENDRIX, #208777, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-454-WKW

) [WO]

)

J. C. GILES, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

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

Wayne Hendrix [“Hendrix”], a state inmate, in which he alleges that a correctional officer

subjected him to excessive force on April 5, 2010, during his incarceration at the Ventress

Correctional Facility and maintains he was harassed when leaving the law library a couple

of weeks later. The defendants filed a special report and supporting evidentiary materials

1

addressing the claimsraised byHendrix. In addition, on November 5, 2012, the defendants

filed a response to a motion filed by Hendrix regarding his lack of access to a law library,

in which the defendants assert “J. O. Davis does have a law library. This facility also has

law books and working computers.” Exhibit A to the Response (Aff. of Warden Cynthia

White) - Doc. No. 40-1 at 1.

Hendrix is now incarcerated at the J. O. Davis Correctional Facility.

1

Case 2:10-cv-00454-WKW-SRW Document 43 Filed 11/09/12 Page 1 of 5
On November 5, 2012, Hendrix filed a motion for temporary injunctive relief in

which he challenges the constitutionality of the access to legal materials he is currently

provided at the J. O. Davis Correctional Facility and alleges that officers have retaliated

against him for seeking access to a law library. Doc. No. 39. The court construes this

document to contain a motion for preliminary injunction. Upon review of this motion, the

objective evidentiary materials contained in the record, and this court’s order denying

Hendrix’s motion for temporary restraining order based on the same groundsfor relief, the

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

II. 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 Hendrix 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 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

2

Case 2:10-cv-00454-WKW-SRW Document 43 Filed 11/09/12 Page 2 of 5
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

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

In denying Hendrix’srequestfor a temporaryrestraining order, this court determined

that Hendrix failed to meet each of the prerequisites necessary for issuance of preliminary

injunctive relief. Order of November 6, 2012 - Doc. No. 42 at 2. For the same reasons,

issuance of a preliminary injunction is not warranted.

3

Case 2:10-cv-00454-WKW-SRW Document 43 Filed 11/09/12 Page 3 of 5
III. CONCLUSION

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

1. The motion for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff on November 5, 2012

be DENIED.

2

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

It is further

ORDERED that on or before November 23, 2012, the parties may file objections to

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.,

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

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

2

in his motion regarding actions taken against him at the J. O. Davis Correctional Facility he may do so by

filing a separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Alabama. 

Case 2:10-cv-00454-WKW-SRW Document 43 Filed 11/09/12 Page 4 of 5
issued prior to September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 9th day of November, 2012.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00454-WKW-SRW Document 43 Filed 11/09/12 Page 5 of 5