Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00174/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00174-0/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

RODNEY ALVERSON, #132431, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-174-WHA

)

KIM TOBIAS THOMAS, 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 Rodney

Alverson [“Alverson”], a state inmate, in which he challenges conditions at the Draper

Correctional Facility. Alverson filed a motion for preliminary injunction upon initiation

of his complaint (Doc. No. 1 at 9). On March 13, 2012, the defendants filed a response

in opposition to issuance of the preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 13). In this response, the

defendants maintain Alverson does not meet each of the requisite elements for issuance of

a preliminary injunction.

Upon review of the motion for preliminary injunction and the response filed by the

defendants, the court concludes 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 Alverson demonstrates each of the

Case 2:12-cv-00174-WHA-TFM Document 17 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 4
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

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

2

Case 2:12-cv-00174-WHA-TFM Document 17 Filed 03/15/12 Page 2 of 4
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 that Alverson has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on

the merits of his claims. Alverson also fails to demonstrate a substantial threat 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 asissuance of the requested injunction would impose inordinate restrictions on

the daily operation of the Draper Correctional Facility. Finally, the public interest element

of the equation is a neutral factor at this juncture. Thus, Alverson 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.

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

It is further

ORDERED that on or before March 29, 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

3

Case 2:12-cv-00174-WHA-TFM Document 17 Filed 03/15/12 Page 3 of 4
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

issued prior to September 30, 1981.

Done this 15th day of March, 2012.

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:12-cv-00174-WHA-TFM Document 17 Filed 03/15/12 Page 4 of 4