Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00940/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00940-0/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 

CARLOS CAREY, #245 045, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-940-WHA 

 ) [WO] 

MS. BOBEN, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Pending before the court is Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. Doc. # 21. He 

seeks to enjoin Defendants from refusing to meet with him to discuss classification matters 

regarding his requests to be placed in various rehabilitation programs and matters associated with 

an out-of-state sentence running concurrently with the Alabama sentence(s) he is serving. Plaintiff 

requests he be placed on a non-biased classification specialist’s caseload. Upon review, 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 (11th Cir. 2002). This court may grant 

a preliminary injunction only if Plaintiff demonstrates each of these 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 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 

Case 2:15-cv-00940-WHA-WC Document 25 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 4
2 

F.2d 1176, 1185 (11th Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and 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; All Care Nursing Serv., 

Inc. v. Bethesda Mem’l Hosp. Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th 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 

(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 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.’” 

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

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

Cir. 1990). 

III. DISCUSSION

 Review of Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief reflects he has not made the demanding 

showing required for this extraordinary form of relief. He does not meet his threshold obligation 

of showing a reasonable probability of success on the merits of his request, without more, that 

prison officials be enjoined from refusing to meet with him to discuss his prison case file or 

rehabilitation plans. See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999) (to state a viable 

Case 2:15-cv-00940-WHA-WC Document 25 Filed 06/14/16 Page 2 of 4
3 

§ 1983 claim a plaintiff must assert deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or law of the 

United States by a state actor); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Plaintiff’s 

request is also devoid of any allegation he will suffer specific and irreparable harm if an injunction 

is not issued. To establish irreparable injury, Plaintiff must show 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 (3d Cir. 1989) (“The 

preliminary injunction must be the only way of protecting the plaintiff from harm.”). The court 

finds that Plaintiff's complaint regarding his request for preliminary injunctive relief is wrapped 

up in his civil rights action which will afford him with adequate redress for his allegations. 

Because Plaintiff has a forum for his complaint, equitable remedies, such as temporary restraining 

orders and/or preliminary injunctions, shall not be given. Finally, it is impossible to determine 

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. Issuing a preliminary injunction is not warranted. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

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

1. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 21) be DENIED; and 

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

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before June 28, 2016, the parties may file any objections to this 

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. 

Case 2:15-cv-00940-WHA-WC Document 25 Filed 06/14/16 Page 3 of 4
4 

 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); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 

790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989). 

 Done this 14th day of June, 2016. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 UNITES STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00940-WHA-WC Document 25 Filed 06/14/16 Page 4 of 4