[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-14889

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:16-cv-00635-TJC-JRK

CLINTON LEE POWERS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

ALEX TAYLOR, 

Individual and Official Capacity, 

JOHN PALMER, 

Individual and Official Capacity, 

JAMES EDWARDS, 

Individual and Official Capacity, 

C. WYNN, 

Individual and Official Capacity, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(May 31, 2017)

Case: 16-14889 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Clinton Lee Powers, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this

interlocutory appeal from the district court’s order denying his second motion for a 

preliminary injunction. Mr. Powers, a Messianic Jew, alleged that his right to 

freely exercise his religion was substantially burdened, in violation of the 

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, by the 

refusal of prison officials to provide him with pre-prepared meals to eat on 

Shabbat. Mr. Powers alleged that it is a violation of his religious beliefs to prepare 

food or eat food that had been prepared by others on Shabbat, and requested a 

preliminary injunction directing prison officials to provide his Shabbat meals in 

advance. 

We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion. 

See Mitsubishi Int’l Corp. v. Cardinal Textile Sales, Inc., 14 F.3d 1507, 1517 (11th 

Cir. 1994). Our “review of such a decision is justifiably limited because the grant 

or denial of a preliminary injunction is almost always based on an abbreviated set 

of facts, requiring a delicate balancing of the probabilities of ultimate success with 

the consequences of immediate irreparable injury which could possibly flow from 

the denial of preliminary relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alternations 

omitted). We therefore “may reverse the district court’s order only if there was a 

Case: 16-14889 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 Page: 2 of 5 
3

clear abuse of discretion.” Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1175 (11th Cir. 2000) 

(en banc) (emphasis in original). 

In determining whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction, the district 

court must consider whether the moving party has demonstrated (1) a substantial 

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that the order is necessary to prevent 

irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm that the order 

would cause to the non-movant; and (4) that the order would not be adverse to the 

public interest. See Four Seasons Hotels And Resorts, B.V. v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 

320 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2003). A preliminary injunction is the “exception 

rather than the rule” and is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted 

unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to each of the 

four prerequisites.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

“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.” Ne. Florida 

Chapter of Ass’n of Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 896 F.2d 

1283, 1284 (11th Cir. 1990). “Mandatory preliminary relief, which goes well 

beyond simply maintaining the status quo[,] is particularly disfavored, and should 

not be issued unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.” Martinez v. 

Mathews, 544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976).

Case: 16-14889 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 Page: 3 of 5 
4

The district court denied Mr. Powers’ second motion for preliminary 

injunction, concluding that Mr. Powers had not met his burden of persuasion as to 

the four prerequisites for injunctive relief. Mr. Powers subsequently moved for 

clarification of that order. The district court granted the motion in part to provide 

clarification, explaining that Mr. Powers had been incarcerated since at least 1995 

and—citing a prior civil case filed by Mr. Powers in 2012—that he had been a 

“practicing Messianic Jewish Inmate” since at least 2012, but did not seek 

intervention regarding his Saturday meals until December of 2015. The district 

court concluded that the claim of irreparable injury was undermined by 

Mr. Powers’ delay in seeking relief. 

Mr. Powers argues on appeal that, although he has identified himself as a 

Messianic Jewish inmate since approximately 2012, his knowledge of the tenets of 

his belief system are evolving, and that the district court should not have dissected

his religious beliefs. He failed, however, to assert such a statement as to his 

evolving religious understanding and beliefs in either of the verified complaints or 

motions for preliminary injunction that he filed with the district court. 

We certainly agree that it is not a court’s role to question the viability of a 

litigant’s religious beliefs or his adherence to the dictates of his faith. See Watts v. 

Florida Int’l Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1294–96 (11th Cir. 2007). Given our limited 

review and the heavy burden placed upon Mr. Powers to demonstrate irreparable 

Case: 16-14889 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 Page: 4 of 5 
5

harm, however, we cannot conclude that the district court clearly abused its 

discretion in denying the extraordinary remedy of mandatory injunctive relief. 

Specifically, the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in determining 

that Mr. Powers’ apparent (i.e., unexplained) delay in seeking relief undercut the 

claim of imminent irreparable injury. Mr. Powers could have explained why he 

faced harm in 2015, but not before, yet he did not. See Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, 

Inc., 840 F.3d 1244, 1248 (11th Cir. 2016) (“A delay in seeking a preliminary 

injunction of even only a few months—though not necessarily fatal—militates 

against a finding of irreparable harm.”).

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 16-14889 Date Filed: 05/31/2017 Page: 5 of 5