Muhammad v. Riley et al (INMATE1)(DO NOT ACCEPT DISCOVERY)

Filing 11

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that 8 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction be denied. This case be referred back to the undersigned for additional proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 12/27/2006. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/13/2006. (cb, )

Muhammad v. Riley et al (INMATE1)(DO NOT ACCEPT DISCOVERY)

Doc. 11

Case 2:06-cv-01076-WKW-WC

Document 11

Filed 12/13/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION C H R I S DESHAWN CARPENTER M U H A M M A D , AIS #204950, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) ) C IV IL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-1076-WKW ) [W O ] ) ) ) )

B O B RILEY, et al., Defendants

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Chris Deshawn Carpenter Muhammad [ " M u h a m m a d " ], a state inmate, presents a myriad of claims against numerous defendants w ith respect to the conditions of confinement at Easterling Correctional Facility. On D e c em b e r 12, 2006, Muhammad filed a motion for preliminary injunction under Rule 65, F e d e r a l Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon consideration of the motion for preliminary injunction, the court concludes that th is motion is due to be denied. D IS C U S S IO N T h e decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction "is within the sound discretion o f the district court . . ." Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11 th Cir. 2002). The four p rereq u isites which Muhammad must demonstrate to warrant issuance of a preliminary in ju n c tio n are: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-01076-WKW-WC

Document 11

Filed 12/13/2006

Page 2 of 4

o f irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) that the harm to Muhammad outweighs the h a rm to the non-moving parties; and (4) that an injunction would be in the interest of the p u b lic . Palmer, 287 F.3d at 1329; Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176 (11 th Cir. 1983); Shatel C o r p . v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (11 th Cir. 1983). "[A] preliminary in ju n c tio n is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly e s ta b lis h e d the burden of persuasion" as to each of the four prerequisites. See McDonald's C o r p . v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11 th Cir. 1998) (internal citations and quotations o m itte d ); see also Texas v. Seatrain Int'l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175, 179 (5 th Cir. 1975) (grant of p relim inary injunction "is the exception rather than the rule," and movant must clearly carry th e burden of persuasion). The moving party's failure to demonstrate a "substantial

lik elih o o d of success on the merits" may defeat the party's claim, regardless of the party's a b ility to establish any of the other elements. Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1 3 4 2 (11 th Cir. 1994); see also Siegel v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11 th Cir. 2000) (noting tha t "the absence of a substantial likelihood of irreparable injury would, standing alone, make p relim inary injunctive relief improper"). M u h a m m a d complains of overcrowding, a lack of security and hazardous living c o n d itio n s "that [are] causing plaintiff irreparable harm . . ." Motion for Preliminary In ju n c tio n at 1. In his motion for preliminary injunction, Muhammad seeks an injunction w h ic h requires the defendants to (i) relieve overcrowding, (ii) place bunks at least ten (10) f e et apart, (iii) repair of the prison water system, (iv) follow applicable guidelines and 2

Case 2:06-cv-01076-WKW-WC

Document 11

Filed 12/13/2006

Page 3 of 4

re g u latio n s, (v) refrain from defrauding Alabama taxpayers and the federal government with r e sp e c t to operation of the drug treatment programs, (vi) allow inmates yard time regardless o f their custody status, (vii) employ a Muslim chaplain, and (viii) cease the flow of county in m a te s into the state prison system. Id. at 2. Other than his self-serving, conclusory allegations of constitutional violations, M u h a m m a d presents nothing which supports his claims for relief and therefore fails to e sta b lish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Muhammad likewise fails to d em o n strat e that he will suffer the requisite irreparable harm absent issuance of a preliminary in ju n c tio n . Moreover, the pleadings before the court are devoid of any evidence which sh o w s that upon balancing the equities of the parties issuance of an injunction would be in th e public interest. Thus, Muhammad has failed to meet his burden of establishing each of th e prerequisites necessary for issuance of a preliminary injunction. C O N C L U SIO N A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . The motion for preliminary injunction filed by the plaintiff on December 12, 2006 b e DENIED. 2. This case be referred back the undersigned for additional proceedings. It is further O R D E R E D that on or before December 27, 2006 the parties may file objections to the R e c o m m e n d a ti o n . Any objection must specifically identify the findings in the 3

Case 2:06-cv-01076-WKW-WC

Document 11

Filed 12/13/2006

Page 4 of 4

R e c o m m e n d a tio n objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be c o n sid e re d by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a il u r e to file written objections to the proposed findings in the Recommendation sh a ll bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report a c c e p te d or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest i n j u s tic e . Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds S e c u ritie s, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1 2 0 6 (11 th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth C irc u it issued prior to September 30, 1981. D o n e this 13 th day of December, 2006.

/s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY C H IE F UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4