Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00842/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00842-1/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

JIMMY FRANK CAMERON, #105591, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-CV-842-TMH

) [WO]

)

RICHARD ALLEN, 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 Jimmy Frank

Cameron [“Cameron”], a state inmate and frequent federal litigant, in which he alleges the

defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs by refusing to refer him

to an orthopedic specialist in 2009 regarding pain in his shoulders. Cameron alleges this

pain resulted from injuries suffered in a 1982 motor vehicle accident and a fall during his

incarceration at the Draper Correctional Facility in September of 2008. The defendants

filed special reports and supporting evidentiary materials, including relevant medical

records and affidavitsfromDr.James P. Whitley, addressing the claims raised byCameron.

On June 27, 2011, Cameron filed a motion for preliminary injunction (Court Doc.

No. 47) in which he seeks issuance of an injunction requiring Correctional Medical

Case 2:10-cv-00842-TMH-TFM Document 48 Filed 06/29/11 Page 1 of 5
Services[“CMS”] to provide him medical treatment which he deems adequate for all of his

physical ailments. Upon review of the motion for preliminary injunction and the objective

evidentiary materials contained in the record, the court concludes this motion 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 Cameron 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

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

2

Case 2:10-cv-00842-TMH-TFM Document 48 Filed 06/29/11 Page 2 of 5
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

III. DISCUSSION

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

court finds Cameron has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the

merits of his claims. Cameron also fails to demonstrate a substantial threat that he will

suffer the requisite irreparable injury absent issuance of a preliminary injunction. The third

factor, balancing potential harm to the parties, weighs more heavily in favor of the

defendants as issuance of the requested injunction would adversely impact the ability of

health care personnel to provide medical treatment to the plaintiff in accordance with their

professional judgment. Finally, the public interest element of the equation is, at best, a

3

Case 2:10-cv-00842-TMH-TFM Document 48 Filed 06/29/11 Page 3 of 5
neutral factor at this juncture. Thus, Cameron has failed to meet his burden of

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

preliminary injunction.

IV. CONCLUSION

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

1. The motion for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff be DENIED.

1

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

It is further

ORDERED that on or before July 19, 2011 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

 The plaintiff is advised that if he seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the medical 1

treatment currently being provided to him at the Bibb Correctional Facility he may do so by filing a

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

Alabama. 

4

Case 2:10-cv-00842-TMH-TFM Document 48 Filed 06/29/11 Page 4 of 5
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 29th day of June, 2011.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 2:10-cv-00842-TMH-TFM Document 48 Filed 06/29/11 Page 5 of 5