Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00672/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00672-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DEMON VICTORELL SLATER, )

#177 985, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-672-MHT

 ) [WO]

CHAPLAIN ASKEW, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint challenging Defendant 

Askew’s alleged failure to approve his request for various religious materials such as books and a 

prayer rug. Doc. 7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Askew’s job duties include the approval of all 

religious materials and the transmission of the requested religious material to inmates within three 

days. Doc. 7. The amendment to the complaint contains a request for a temporary restraining order 

and a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Defendants from not automatically 

releasing religious materials to inmates. Previously, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a 

temporary restraining order. Doc. 8. Upon review, the court concludes that the motion for 

preliminary injunction is also 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 (11th Cir. 2002). This court may grant 

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

substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will occur absent issuance of 

the injunction; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the potential damage the requested injunction 

Case 2:16-cv-00672-MHT-GMB Document 11 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 4
may cause the non-moving parties; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public 

interest. Id.; McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998); Cate v. 

Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176, 1185 (11th Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber & Yacht Corp., 

697 F.2d 1352, 1354–55 (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 quotation

omitted); All Care Nursing Service, Inc. v. Bethesda Mem’l Hosp. Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th 

Cir. 1989) (holding that a preliminary injunction is issued only when “drastic relief” is necessary); 

Texas v. Seatrain Int’l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 179 (5th Cir. 1975) (holding that the grant of a 

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 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 (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 Fla. Chapter 

of Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283, 1284 (11th Cir. 

1990).

The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and finds 

that his request is essentially contained in his civil rights action, and that this action will afford 

him with adequate redress for his allegations. Moreover, Plaintiff’s request for preliminary 

injunctive relief is devoid of any allegation that he will suffer specific and irreparable harm if an 

Case 2:16-cv-00672-MHT-GMB Document 11 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 4
injunction is not issued. To establish irreparable injury, Plaintiff must show that he will suffer 

harm that “cannot be redressed by a legal or an equitable remedy” through the ordinary course of 

litigation. See Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797, 801 (3rd Cir. 1989) 

(“The preliminary injunction must be the only way of protecting the plaintiff from harm”). Finally, 

it is impossible to determine precisely what Plaintiff’s requested relief would entail, preventing 

the court from determining what burden an injunction would have on the Alabama Department of 

Corrections and whether issuing one would harm the public interest. For all of these reasons, a 

preliminary injunction is not warranted.

II. CONCLUSION

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

1. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 7) be DENIED; and 

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

It is ORDERED that on or before October 13, 2016, the parties may file an objection to 

the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous,

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on 

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon 

grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust 

Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).

Case 2:16-cv-00672-MHT-GMB Document 11 Filed 09/22/16 Page 3 of 4
DONE on this 22nd day of September, 2016.

/s/ Gray M. Borden 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00672-MHT-GMB Document 11 Filed 09/22/16 Page 4 of 4