Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00081/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00081-2/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. 2:09-CV-81-WHA

) [WO]

)

JOHN CUMMINS, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is before the court on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 amended complaint filed by

Rodney Alverson [“Alverson”], a state inmate presently confined at the Easterling

Correctional Facility [“Easterling”]. In this amended complaint, Alverson challenges

various conditions of confinement at Easterling, being slapped on the back of the head by a

riot officer, the denial of visitation to family members, the lack of access to tobacco products,

and denial of adequate treatment for mental and medical conditions associated with his

nicotine withdrawals. Alverson seeks issuance of a preliminary injunction to prevent the

alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint - Court Doc.

No. 9 at 22. 

I. 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

Case 2:09-cv-00081-TMH-TFM Document 13 Filed 03/27/09 Page 1 of 4
2

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

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 (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 (5 Cir. 1975) (grant of preliminary

th

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 (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

Case 2:09-cv-00081-TMH-TFM Document 13 Filed 03/27/09 Page 2 of 4
3

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 (11 Cir.1990).” Suntrust Bank v. Houghton th

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

II. 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 that 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. 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.

III. 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 the undersigned for additional proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before April 13, 2009 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the

Case 2:09-cv-00081-TMH-TFM Document 13 Filed 03/27/09 Page 3 of 4
4

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, 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 27th day of March, 2009.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:09-cv-00081-TMH-TFM Document 13 Filed 03/27/09 Page 4 of 4