Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00966/USCOURTS-almd-2_11-cv-00966-1/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

MAURICE BULLOCK, #189070, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:11-CV-966-MHT

) [WO]

)

KENNETH JONES, 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 Maurice

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

Correctional Facility. Bullock filed a motion for preliminary injunction upon initiation of

his complaint (Doc. No. 2). On January 17, 2012, the defendants filed a response in

opposition to issuance of the preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 23). In this response, the

defendants maintain that Bullock does not meet each of the 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

Case 2:11-cv-00966-MHT-SRW Document 40 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 4
This court may grant a preliminary injunction only if Bullock 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 (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

2

Case 2:11-cv-00966-MHT-SRW Document 40 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 4
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 Mifflin

th

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 findsthat Bullock hasfailed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood ofsuccess on the

merits of his claims. Bullock also failsto demonstrate a substantial threat that he willsuffer

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 thisjuncture. Thus,Bullock 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 the undersigned for additional proceedings.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before March 1, 2012, the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the

Recommendation objected to. Frivolous, conclusory or general objections will not be

considered by the District Court. The parties are further advised that this Recommendation

3

Case 2:11-cv-00966-MHT-SRW Document 40 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 4
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 16 day of February, 2012.

th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:11-cv-00966-MHT-SRW Document 40 Filed 02/16/12 Page 4 of 4