FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 89 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 23 78 -VEH-HGD ANTOINE BRUCE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff –Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us CONSTANCE REESE, W ard en , BECKY CLAY, Ass oc ia te W ard en , J. SAVIDGE, Ass oc ia te W ard en , R. E. HOLT , So ut he as t Re gi on al Dire ct or , FARRI S, Ass is ta ntCo rrec ti on al Serv ic es Adm in is tra to r, etal., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s–App el le es .__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 2 0, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ant oi ne Bru ce, a fe de ral pri so ne r pr oc eed in g pr o s e , app eal s fr om th e di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r a p rel im in ary in jun ct io n. Bruc e as ks us to rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er an d re m an d t hi s ca se foranev id en ti ary he ari ng on hi s m ot io n. Bu t b ecau se we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly de ni edth e m ot io n wi th ou t h ol di ng a he ari ng , we affi rm . I. Bru ce i s a f

ed eral pri so ne r in carc erat edat F CI Tal la de ga , wher e fo r ne arl y two week s i n Oct ob er an d No ve m be r of 20 09 , he was pl acedineit he r fo ur -p oi nt oram bu la to ry res tra in ts . Bru ce al le ge s tha t dur in g thi s t im e, he was c on fin edto a cel l wi th ou t a wo rk in g t oi le t an d t ha t h e was de ni edfoo d, b ed di ng , andth e ab il it y to ba th e, brus h h is tee th , or u se de od or an t. As ares ul t, h is cel l b ecame a squa li d
an d fe ti d p la ce. Bru ce b ro ug hta Bive ns - cl ai m ag ai ns t s ev eral co rrec ti on al off ic ia ls at F CI 2Tall ad eg a, co nt en di ng th atth e co nd it io ns of h is co nf in em en t v io la te d t he Eig ht h Am en dm en t an d a sk in g fo r da m ag es . He als o s ou gh t i nju nc ti ve rel ie f to pre ve nt an y pri so ne r atFCI Tal la de gafro m be in g c on fin edinfou r-p oi ntres tra in ts forov er fo urho ur s u nl es s i t was ne ces sary forth e p ris on er’s o wn s afet y or the saf

ety of ot he r pr is on ers or c orrect io na l o ffi ci al s. The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d h is m ot io n fo r a 1 pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n. Be fo re ad dr es si ng Bru ce’s arg um en ts , we no te th atwe read pr o s e br ie fs li be ral ly. Ti mso n v . Sa mso n , 51 8 F .3d87 0, 8 74 (11 th Cir
. 20 08 ). II. A di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on no t t o h ol d ahe ari ng on a m ot io n fo r a pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n i s re vi ewedforab us e o f di sc ret io n. McDo na ld ’s Co rp . v. Rob er ts on , 14 7 F .3d13 01 , 13 06 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Altho ug h t he di st ric t co urt d id no t ex pl ic it ly den y

Bru ce’s reque stfora he ari ng , we tre atit s o rd er d en y in g t he
m ot io n o n i ts m eri ts as a n i m pl ic itde ni al of h is reque stfora he ari ng . W e al so

Br uce’ s motion for injunctive relief also reque sted relief

for se vera l other alleg ed 1 constitutional viol ations, which we re c laims in his original complaint. B ut when B ruce amende d his complaint, he omitted those cause s of ac tion. His request for injunctive relief

as to those cause s of ac tion was thus properly denied a s they

wer e as outside the sc ope of the underly ing suit. Lowery v. Ala. Power Co. , 483 F.3d 1184, 1220 ( 11th Cir. 2007) (“Unde r . . . fe dera l law, an ame nded complaint super sedes the initial complaint and be comes the ope rative ple adingin the case .”); Kaimowit

z v. Orlando , 122 F.3d 41, 43 ( 11th Cir. 1997) (“A district c ourt should not issue an injunction when the injunction in question is not of the same c hara cter , and deals with a matter lying wholly

outside the issues in the suit.”). 3rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g am ot io n fo r pr el im in ary in jun ct io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Hor to n v . Cit y o f St. Augu st in e , 27 2 F .3d13 19 , 13 26 (11 th Ci r. 20 01 ). A di st ric t co urt d oe s n otalwa y s h av e to ho lda he ari ng on a m ot io n fo r a pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n. Id
. at13 11 . A hear in g m us t b e h el d i f “ th e fac ts are bi tt erl y co nt es te d a ndcred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns m

us t b e m ad e to de ci de whet he r in jun ct iv e rel ie f sh ou ldis su e.” Id
. at13 12 . An ev id en ti ary he ari ng do es no t n eed to be he ldwher e th e fac ts ne ces sa ry to rul e o n t he m ot io n a re u nd is pu te d. Id
. at 13 13 . Butev enwhenth e fac ts are u nd is pu te d, i f th e res ol ut io n o f th e m ot io n de pe nd s o n i nf

eren ces to be dra wn fr om th e fac ts , a he ari ng m ig htbe ap pr op ria te . Id
. In t ha t l as t ca te go ry

of c as es , whet he r to ho lda he ari ng is lef t t o t he so un d di sc ret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt. Id
. Bru ce ar gu es th atth is is a cas e whe re the fact s ar e b it te rly dis pu te d andso a he ari ng sh ou ldha ve be enhe ld . The g ov ern m en t co nt en ds th atth e m at eri al fact s ne ces sa ry to rul e o n t he m ot io n a re n otdi sp ut ed , andth us th e d is tri ctco urt was well withi n i ts di sc ret io n t o n otho lda he ari ng . W e ag ree wi th th e g ov ern m en t th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly exer ci se d i ts di sc ret io n b y no t h ol di ng a he ari ng be cau se we co nc lu de th ata di sp os it iv e fac t was un di sp ut ed
.

4To p rev ai l o n am ot io n fo r a p rel im in ary in jun ct io n am ov an t m

us t es tabl is h fo urth in gs : (1 ) th athe ha s a s ub st an ti al li ke li ho odof s uc ces s o n t he m eri ts ; (2 ) th athe wil l s uf

fer an i rrep arab le in

jury unl es s the in

jun ct io n i s g ran te d; (3) th atth e th reat en edin

jury to the m ov an t o ut weig hs what ev er d am ag e th e in jun ct io n wi ll cau se to th e o pp os in g p arty ; an d, (4 ) th atth e in jun ct io n wi ll no t b e ag ai ns t the publ ic in te res t. McDo na ld ’s , 14 7 F .3dat1 30 6. An i nju nc ti on is anex tra or di na ry rem edy an d t he th reat en edin

jury the
m ov an t wi ll su fferm

us t b e “ ne it he r rem ot e n orsp ecu la ti ve , bu t ac tu al an d imm in en t.” Ne. Fla . Cha pt er of Ass ’n of Gen. Co ntra ct or

s o f Am. v. Ci tyof Ja cks on vi ll e , 89 6 F .2d12 83 , 12 85 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t Bru ce d idno t s ho w th athe wou ldsu fferanirr ep arab le in jury unl es s i t g ran te d t he in jun ct io n. We agre e. Bru ce h as no t al le ge d t ha t i t i s l ik el y he wil l ag ai n b e res tra in edor c on fin ed as he was i n Oct ob er an d No ve m be r of 20 09 , no r ha s h e p ro vi de d a ny evi de nc e th atth os e co nd it io ns are l ik el y to recu r. Cf

. Cit y o f Lo s An ge les v. Ly on s , 46 1 U.S. 95 , 10 5– 10 6 (1 98 3) (ho ld in g apl ai nt iff di d n otha ve st an di ng to see k i nju nc ti ve rel ie f whe re h e d idno t al le ge a li ke li ho odhe wou ldbe subjec te d t o t he co nduc t h e so ug htto en

joi n) . Accor di ng ly, he ha s n otest ab li sh edth athe wil l s uf fer a n irr ep arab le in

jury w it ho uta pr el im in ary in jun ct io n a ndwe affi rm

th e d is tri ct 5co urt’s o rd er.

AFFIRMED.

6