Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00191/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00191-0/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

ADRIAN KERMIT DUNCAN, #198585, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-191-MHT 

)

JEFFERSON S. DUNN, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This cause of action is pending before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint 

filed by Adrian Kermit Duncan (“Duncan”), a state inmate currently incarcerated at the 

Limestone Correctional Facility (“Limestone”). In the instant complaint, Duncan 

challenges actions that occurred during his prior term of confinement at Easterling 

Correctional Facility (“Easterling”) after his transfer from Bullock Correctional Facility 

(“Bullock”). Specifically, Duncan maintains that the defendants, who are correctional 

officials employed throughout the prison system, engaged in a conspiracy to ensure that he 

did not receive adequate protection while confined at Easterling. He also makes allegations 

with respect to his service as a witness to the murder of an inmate at Bullock and claims 

that his transfer to Easterling placed his life in jeopardy because the inmates charged with 

the murder were housed in disciplinary segregation at Easterling. Duncan further claims 

that one of the defendants, Lieutenant Timothy Scott, ordered “a hit” on his life due to a 

statement he provided investigators implicating this defendant in the inmate’s murder. 

Case 2:16-cv-00191-MHT-GMB Document 102 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 7
2

On April 13, 2016, Duncan filed a motion for preliminary injunction in which he 

seeks a transfer from Easterling to “protective custody within the A.D.O.C. away from 

defendants and 24/7 death threats he [is] receiving from seg. Inmates at Easterling . . . and 

also to assure . . . the needed access/materials to properly litigate [this] civil action.” Doc. 

25 at 1. The motion for preliminary injunction addresses relief related to Duncan’s 

confinement at Easterling.

The defendants filed responses to the motion for preliminary injunction. In their 

responses, the defendants argue that the preliminary injunctive relief sought by Duncan 

regarding protection is now moot as he has been transferred to Limestone and is currently 

confined in a single cell in administrative segregation. Moreover, the documents and 

pleadings filed by Duncan demonstrate that he had appropriate access to the court during 

his incarceration at Easterling. 

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 (11th Cir. 2002). 

This court may grant a preliminary injunction only if Duncan demonstrates “each of the 

following four prerequisites: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a 

substantial threat of irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiff 

outweighs the potential harm to the defendant; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve 

the public interest.” Id.; Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034-

1035 (11th Cir. 2001); Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1295 (11th Cir. 1999); McDonald’s 

Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998); Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176 

Case 2:16-cv-00191-MHT-GMB Document 102 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 7
3

(11th Cir. 1983). “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 (internal quotations omitted) (citing 

All Care Nursing Service, Inc. v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 

(11th Cir. 1989); Texas v. Seatrain Int’l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 1975) (grant of 

preliminary 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 request for injunctive relief, 

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 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting that “the 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 (11th Cir. 1990); 

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

III. DISCUSSION

In addressing Duncan’s claims regarding the need for transfer from Easterling and 

placement in protective custody, the defendants argue that the request for injunctive relief 

has effectively been met by his transfer to Limestone and placement in a single cell in 

administrative segregation. Kristen Bias, a Classification Specialist employed at 

Limestone, provides the following relevant information:

Case 2:16-cv-00191-MHT-GMB Document 102 Filed 07/27/16 Page 3 of 7
4

Inmate Adrian Duncan, AIS# 198585, claims in a written statement

provided to correctional staff at Limestone Correctional Facility that, on

August 6, 2015, he witnessed the murder of another inmate, Clementa

Curry, at Bullock Correctional Facility. Inmate Duncan further suggests that

he recorded this incident on cell phone video [which Duncan now 

acknowledges is “a fabricated story made up by complainant . . . seeking 

leverage” against correctional officials, Doc. No. 1 at 8-9], and that the death

of Inmate Curry was due to a “hit” being placed on Inmate Curry by a

Correctional Lieutenant. Inmate Duncan states that he provided a written

statement to authorities regarding the death of Inmate Curry, and alleges that

this statement was then shown to numerous other inmates to include one of

the alleged perpetrators. Inmate Duncan claims that, as a result, there is

now a “hit” out on him by order of numerous Security Threat Groups, to

include the Crips, the Bloods, the Mexican Mafia, and the Gangster Discipl e s.

Inmate Duncan further claims that members of these groups have strong ties

to Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) staff, to include

correctional staff at the facility level and member(s) of the Investigation

and Intelligence Division. Inmate Duncan alleges that there have already

been numerous unsuccessful attempts by members of these groups to

physically harm him or take his life.

On 5/6/2016, a Reclassification Hearing was held to determine 

Inmate Duncan’s placement based on the allegations he made as detailed

above. Inmate Duncan has claimed to have a vast number of unknown

enemies within the ADOC inmate population. He has also implicated the

involvement of ADOC staff members, and has claimed that numerous

attempts have already been made on his life. As such, the Classification

Committee determined that the safest environment to ensure Inmate

Duncan’s personal safety was placement in Administrative Segregation at 

Limestone Correctional Facility. While Limestone Correctional Facility

does have a Protective Custody (PC) Unit, the PC Unit is an open bay

housing unit and the inmates assigned to this unit are in contact with each

other throughout the day. Placement in Administrative Segregation

provides for protective custody in a single cell environment, which is the

most effective way to ensure Inmate Duncan’s safety from unknown

enemies.

Doc. 95-1 at 1-2. 

Insofar as Duncan seeks preliminary injunctive relief regarding physical access to 

the law library and legal materials at Easterling, the record in this case belies his claim that 

his access has been insufficient. Duncan filed this case in mid-March of 2016 while 

Case 2:16-cv-00191-MHT-GMB Document 102 Filed 07/27/16 Page 4 of 7
5

incarcerated at Easterling and remained incarcerated at this facility for approximately two 

months after initiation of this case until his transfer to Limestone. During these two 

months, Duncan filed a motion to amend, a memorandum brief in support of his complaint,

and the instant motion for preliminary injunction. A review of the docket demonstrates 

that Duncan filed all documents necessary to the prosecution of his claims and this case

remains pending before the court on the complaint, as amended. It is therefore clear that 

Duncan has failed to establish the requisite injury for relief, injunctive or otherwise, on an 

access to court claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 & 356–57 (1996) (holding with 

respect to access claims that “it is [the] capability [to bring nonfrivolous legal claims], 

rather than the capability of turning pages in a law library, that is the touchstone”). 

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

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

merits of his claims. Duncan likewise fails to establish a substantial threat that he will 

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

previously determined, there is no threat of an injury with respect to Duncan’s allegation 

regarding a lack of access to the court during his previous term of incarceration at 

Easterling. With respect to his request for protection directed towards officials at 

Easterling, the relief requested is moot as he is no longer incarcerated at this facility. 

Moreover, correctional officials have placed Duncan in a single cell in administrative 

segregation at Limestone “which is the most effective way to ensure [his] safety from 

unknown enemies.” Doc. 95-1 at 2. The third factor, balancing potential harm to the 

parties, weighs much more heavily in favor of the defendants as issuance of the requested 

Case 2:16-cv-00191-MHT-GMB Document 102 Filed 07/27/16 Page 5 of 7
6

injunction would interfere with the ability of correctional officials to determine the manner 

in which to provide security for inmates confined within the prison system. Finally, the 

public interest element of the equation is, at best, a neutral factor at this juncture. Thus, 

Duncan 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 (Doc. 25) be 

DENIED. 

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

It is further ORDERED that on or before August 10, 2016 the plaintiff may file 

objections to the Recommendation. The plaintiff must specifically identify the factual 

findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; 

frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written 

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a de novo determination by the District Court 

of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the 

plaintiff to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and 

legal conclusions accepted 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); 11th Cir. 

R. 3-1; Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). 

Case 2:16-cv-00191-MHT-GMB Document 102 Filed 07/27/16 Page 6 of 7
7

Done this 27th day of July, 2016.

 /s/ Gray M. Borden 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00191-MHT-GMB Document 102 Filed 07/27/16 Page 7 of 7