Barley v. Jamison et al (INMATE1)

Filing 136

ORDER OVERRULING 134 OBJECTIONS; ADOPTING 120 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Mag Judge; finding that plaintiff's 94 motion for preliminary injunction fails, as further set out in order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 2/25/13. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
DANIEL M. BARLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEROY JAMISON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-1036-WKW

ORDER
On February 6, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation. (Doc.
# 120.) Plaintiff objected. (Doc. # 134.) The court reviews de novo the portion of the
Recommendation to which the objection applies. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After an
independent and de novo review of the record, the court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion
for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 94) fails.
Assuming without deciding that Plaintiff could demonstrate a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits and a substantial threat of irreparable injury, his
motion nonetheless fails because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the threatened
injury outweighs the potential damage the requested injunction may cause Defendants
or that the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Palmer v. Braun,
287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002) (listing the four requirements for the grant of
a preliminary injunction); see also Wall v. Ferrero, 142 F. App’x 405, 407 (11th Cir.

2005) (applying the same requirements to a motion for a preliminary injunction
brought by state prison inmates seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Granting the
requested injunction would undermine the state’s operation of its prison system
because it would give inmates like Plaintiff a means to dictate where and how
personnel are assigned. Such an order is contrary to the public interest and risks great
damage to efficient operation of state prison systems. Accordingly, it is ORDERED
that Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 134) is OVERRULED and the Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 120) is ADOPTED.
After Plaintiff filed his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, he filed what he
styled as a Motion for a Protection Order. (Doc. # 121.) When the Magistrate Judge
denied his motion (Doc. # 122), Plaintiff objected (Doc. # 135).
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion and the Magistrate Judge’s order, Plaintiff’s
so-called “Motion for a Protection Order” is actually another motion for a preliminary
injunction.1 Plaintiff does not seek a “protective order” as that term is typically used
in this court, that is, in reference to an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c) to limit the frequency or extent of discovery or to protect against
disclosure of certain discoverable information. Rather, he asks the court to “protect”
1

The full styling on Plaintiff’s filing was “Plaintiff’s Supplemental Evidence in Support
of the Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Protection Order” (Doc. # 121), a title providing
further support for the conclusion that Plaintiff moves the court for the same relief he sought in
his earlier motion.
2

him from the presence of Defendant Leroy Jamison by ordering that Jamison stay
away from Plaintiff until the court can rule on Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim, which
seeks damages as well as injunctive relief. Such an order would be a preliminary
injunction, and as shown above, Plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary injunction.
For the reasons stated above and in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
on Plaintiff’s initial Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 120), it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 135) to the Magistrate Judge’s Order
(Doc. # 122) is OVERRULED.
DONE this 25th day of February, 2013.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3