Page 1 of 3

1

The District Judge’s order dated April 22, 2004 (Doc. 23) denied Plaintiff’s first two motions for injunctive

relief (Docs. 3, 7); the order dated May 19, 2004 (Doc. 33) denied Plaintiff’s third motion (Doc. 18); and, the order dated

January 6, 2005 (Doc. 69) denied Plaintiff’s fourth motion (Doc. 57).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

NOEL K. BANGO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:03cv576/MCR/EMT

JAMES V. CROSBY, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Doc.

66). Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (see

Doc. 1). Since filing this action, Plaintiff has filed five motions for injunctive relief, including the

instant motion (see Docs. 3, 7, 18, 57, 66). The four previous motions have each been denied by

order of the District Judge (see Docs. 23, 33, 69).1

In the instant motion for injunctive relief, Plaintiff essentially raises the same allegations and

arguments contained in his prior motions for injunctive relief. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that

“twice within five months, the defendants have failed to protect Plaintiff at Santa Rosa C.I. . . . close

management (CM) facility units” (Doc. 66 at 1). Plaintiff further alleges “as a result of the ongoing

assaults . . . and the inevitable rampant retaliation whenever Plaintiff file[s] grievances . . . Plaintiff

continues to suffer mental and physical injuries” (id.). As relief, Plaintiff seeks transfer to another

correctional facility.

Case 3:03-cv-00576-MCR-EMT Document 74 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No.: 3:03cv576/MCR/EMT

The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo between the parties

and to prevent irreparable injury until the merits of the lawsuit itself can be reviewed. See Devose

v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). The grant or denial of preliminary injunctive relief

rests in the discretion of the district court. See Carillon Importers, Ltd. v. Frank Pesce Intern. Group

Ltd., 112 F.3d 1125, 1126 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). The district court, however, must

exercise its discretion in light of whether:

1. There is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits;

2. There exists a substantial threat that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if

the injunction is not granted;

3. The threatened injury to Plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm injunction

will do to the defendant; and

4. The granting of the preliminary injunction will not disturb the public interest.

See CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Echostar Communications Corp., 265 F.3d 1193, 1200 (11th Cir.

2001) (citation omitted); Carillon Importers, Ltd., 112 F.3d at 1126. “A preliminary injunction is

an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishes the

‘burden of persuasion’ as to the four requisites.” CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 265 F.3d at 1200 (citation

omitted).

Plaintiff has not clearly established that there exists a substantial threat that he will suffer

irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. Although Plaintiff alleges “ongoing assaults,” he

mentions only two assaults within five months and provides no details concerning those alleged

assaults, including exactly when they occurred. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges mental and physical

injuries, but provides no description or detail concerning these alleged injuries. In short, Plaintiff

has failed to carry his burden of persuasion.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Doc. 66) be DENIED without

prejudice.

Case 3:03-cv-00576-MCR-EMT Document 74 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No.: 3:03cv576/MCR/EMT

At Pensacola, Florida, this 16th day of May, 2005.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

ten (10) days after being served a copy thereof. A copy of objections shall be served upon all

other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See

28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case 3:03-cv-00576-MCR-EMT Document 74 Filed 05/16/05 Page 3 of 3