Muhammad v. Riley et al (INMATE1)(DO NOT ACCEPT DISCOVERY)
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)
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
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
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
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?