Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-01083/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-01083-0/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 H. BALES, #178 239, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:12-CV-1083-TMH

) [WO]

GARY HETZEL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the court is Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief on his claim

of overcrowding at the Easterling Correctional Facility. The court considers the request as

a motion for preliminary injunction under Rule 65(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Upon consideration of the request, the court concludes that Plaintiff's motion for a

preliminary injunction is due to be denied.

I. DISCUSSION

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). The four th

prerequisites which Plaintiff must demonstrate to warrant issuance of a preliminary

injunction are: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat

of irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) that the harm to the plaintiff outweighs the

harm to the non-moving parties; and (4) that an injunction would be in the interest of the

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:12-cv-01083-TMH-TFM Document 5 Filed 12/26/12 Page 1 of 4
public. Id.; Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176 (11 Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber th

and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (11 Cir. 1983). “[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 each of the four prerequisites. See McDonald's Corp. v.

Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11 Cir. 1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted); th

see also Texas v. Seatrain Int'l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 179 (5 Cir. 1975) (grant of preliminary th

injunction “is the 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 (11th

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”).

Here, Plaintiff's generalized claims of overcrowding, inadequate security, inadequate

accommodations for disabled inmates, and inadequate medical services clearly fall short of

demonstrating a meritorious claim based on prison conditions, prison security,

accommodations for disabled inmates, and medical care and treatment. See Rhodes v.

Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347-48 (1981); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The

court, therefore, finds that Plaintiff does not have a substantial likelihood of success on the

merits. Id. Furthermore, it is unclear what Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:12-cv-01083-TMH-TFM Document 5 Filed 12/26/12 Page 2 of 4
on his various claims would entail which precludes the court from determining what burden

a preliminary injunction would have on Easterling specifically and the Department of

Corrections in general and whether issuing one would harm the public interest. Because

Plaintiff fails to satisfy the elements to succeed on his request for preliminary injunctive

relief, his motion for a preliminary injunction is due to be denied. See Parker v. State Bd.

of Pardons and Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (11th Cir .2001).

II. CONCLUSION

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

1. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff (Doc. No. 1) be DENIED;

and 

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

It is further

ORDERED that on or before January 16, 2013 Plaintiff may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the 

Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will

not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised that this Recommendation is not

a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings in the Recommendation

shall bar Plaintiff from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the

report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:12-cv-01083-TMH-TFM Document 5 Filed 12/26/12 Page 3 of 4
or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. 

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc.,

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 26th day of December 2012.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 4 of 4

Case 2:12-cv-01083-TMH-TFM Document 5 Filed 12/26/12 Page 4 of 4