Webb v. Wilkins et al (INMATE 1)
ORDER the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 21 is DENIED; that the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 21 is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate Judge for action or recommendation on all pretrial matters. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 8/27/2012. (jg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RICKY LEE WEBB, JR.,
Case No. 2:12-cv-559
(WO—Do not publish)
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Before the Court is Ricky Lee Webb’s (“Webb”) Motion to Order (Doc. # 21). The
Court construes this pleading as a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion for
preliminary injunction. Webb, a pro se prisoner in the Easterling Correctional Facility,
makes the broad request that the Court issue a temporary restraining order against two
Easterling correctional officers, Officers Kerry Williams and Robert Wilkins, to “ensure his
safety.” Because Webb brings this motion as a pro se litigant, the Court must construe it
liberally. Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008). However, Webb has not
alleged any specific conduct on the part of the officers that has endangered his safety.
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure restricts a court’s ability to grant a
temporary restraining order. To overcome the rule’s restrictions, a plaintiff must make clear
from “specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and
irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). The
Eleventh Circuit has held that this requires the plaintiff to show the following: (1) a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered
unless the injunction issues; (3) that the threatened injury to the moving party outweighs
whatever damages the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued,
the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325,
1329 (11th Cir. 2002).1 A temporary restraining order is “an extraordinary and drastic
remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishe[s] the burden of persuasion”
as to each of these four elements. McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306
(11th Cir. 1998) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
A temporary restraining order is a “drastic remedy” because a court issues it without
giving notice to the opposing party. In other words, denying a party the chance to be heard
requires the moving party to make a persuasive showing of necessity. With this in mind,
Webb’s request for a temporary restraining order fails because his motion consists of bare
conclusions without any facts to support them. Webb has not alleged anything the officers
have actually done that poses an immediate threat to his safety. He claims he has a
“reasonable belief” that Officer Wilkins is “conspiring to have a ‘hit’ on [him] through the
means of willing cellmates.” However, he does not support that claim with any specific
Rule 65 also has a procedural component. But since Webb cannot meet the rule’s substantive
standards, the Court need not concern itself with addressing the procedural issues.
Because Webb’s request consists of mere conclusions, the Court finds that Webb’s
request for a temporary restraining order is more appropriately considered a request for a
preliminary injunction and a claim for permanent injunctive relief.
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #21) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED
that the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #21) is REFERRED to the assigned
Magistrate Judge for action or recommendation on all pretrial matters .
DONE this the 27th day of August, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?