Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00195/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00195-1/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

ANTHONY L. MARBURY, #226054, )

a.k.a., Anthony L. Marbury-El, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-195-MEF

) [WO]

)

KIM TOBIAS THOMAS, 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

Anthony L. Marbury [“Marbury”], an indigent state inmate presently incarcerated at the Ventress

Correctional Facility [“Ventress”]. In the instant cause of action, Marbury challenges the conditions

of confinement at Ventress. In his complaint (Doc. No. 1 at 5-7) and a supplement to the complaint

(Doc. No. 7 at 7), Marbury seeks preliminary injunctive relief. The court therefore construes each

of these documents to contain a motion for issuance of a preliminary injunction. 

Upon review of the motions for preliminary injunction, the court concludes that these

motions are 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). This court may grant a

th

preliminary injunction only if Marbury demonstrates each of the following prerequisites: (1) a 

substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat irreparable injury will occur

Case 2:14-cv-00195-WHA-CSC Document 14 Filed 05/16/14 Page 1 of 4
absent issuance of the injunction; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the potential damage the

requested injunctive relief 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 th

Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (11 Cir. 1983). “In this Circuit, ‘[a] preliminary injunction is an th

extraordinaryand 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 Cir. 1989) (a preliminary th

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 injunction “is the exception rather than the rule,” and th

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 Cir. 1994); see also Siegel v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11 Cir. 2000) (noting that th th

“the absence of a substantial likelihood of irreparable injurywould,standing alone,make preliminary

injunctive reliefimproper”). “‘The chieffunction of a preliminaryinjunction is to preserve the status

quo until the merits of the controversy can be fully and fairlyadjudicated.’ 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 (11 Cir. 2001). th

III. DISCUSSION

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

that Marbury has failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his

2

Case 2:14-cv-00195-WHA-CSC Document 14 Filed 05/16/14 Page 2 of 4
claims. Marbury likewise fails to establish a substantial threat that he will suffer the requisite 1

irreparable injury absent issuance of a preliminary injunction. The third factor, balancing potential

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

requested injunction would interfere with the ability of correctional officials to effectively manage

the daily operation of Ventress. Finally, the public interest element of the equation is, at best, a

neutral factor at this juncture. Thus, Marbury 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 motions for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff be DENIED. 

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

It is further

ORDERED that on or before May 30, 2014, 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,

The plaintiffis advised thatitis not necessarythat documentssubmitted to the court be notarized because

1

in the absence of a notary/authorized officer the plaintiff may simply submit the document with a statement made

under penalty of perjury as allowed by well established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (“Whenever ... any

matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration,

verification, certificate,statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing ofthe personmaking the same ...,such mattermay,

with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the ... declaration, certificate,

verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, astrue under penalty of perjury,

and dated, in substantially the following form ... If executed within the United States, itsterritories, possessions,

or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)’.”).

3

Case 2:14-cv-00195-WHA-CSC Document 14 Filed 05/16/14 Page 3 of 4
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. 1981, en th th

banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued prior to

September 30, 1981.

Done this 16th day of May, 2014.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:14-cv-00195-WHA-CSC Document 14 Filed 05/16/14 Page 4 of 4