Carter v. Correctional Medical Services et al (INMATE 1)(CONSENT)
ORDER denying 1 Motion for TRO; further ORDERED that this case is REFERRED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), to the Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and entry of any orders or recommendations as may be appropriate. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 8/3/12. (scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MICHAEL EUGENE CARTER,
SERVICES, et al.,
CASE NO. 2:12-CV-608-WKW
Before the court is Plaintiff Michael Eugene Carter’s motion for temporary
restraining order contained in his complaint (Doc. # 1) and his affidavit in support
thereof. (Doc. # 14.) Defendants have filed a response to the motion. (Doc. # 15.)
For the reasons discussed below, the motion is due to be denied.
Plaintiff is an inmate at Staton Correctional Facility in Elmore, Alabama.
(Compl. 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated his Eighth Amendment
right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and his Fourteenth Amendment
right to due process. (Compl. 2, 5.) Plaintiff alleges that he has “extremely high
blood pressure that is barely controlled with medications, regular exercise, and careful
dieting.” (Compl. 3.) He further alleges that Defendants refuse to renew his blood
pressure medications and he fears that this could cause serious health complications
or even death. (Compl. 2, 9.)
Plaintiff’s complaint originally sought a temporary restraining order requiring
Defendants to stop withholding his blood pressure medications and to administer these
medications to him.1 (Compl. 5.) In Plaintiff’s later-filed affidavit, Plaintiff admits
that Defendants have given him blood pressure medications, but complains that these
are new medications and are not as effective in controlling his blood pressure. (Pl.’s
Aff. 2–3.) He requests that the court order Defendants to administer medications for
Plaintiff’s severe high-blood pressure “as prescribed prior to the filing of this [c]ivil
[a]ction” until a second opinion can be obtained. (Pl.’s Aff. 4.)
restraining order requires the same four elements as a preliminary injunction, and the
movant bears the burden of demonstrating that they are present. See Parker v. State
Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034–35 (11th Cir. 2001). These four
elements are “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a threat of
irreparable injury, (3) that [the movant’s] own injury would outweigh the injury to the
Under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a temporary restraining order
may be issued without notice only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly
show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition” and “the [movant] certifies in writing any efforts made
to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
Plaintiff’s motion as originally filed did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 65. Accordingly,
Defendants were given notice of and time to respond to Plaintiff’s motion.
nonmovant, and (4) that the injunction would not disserve the public interest.” Tefel
v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1295 (11th Cir. 1999); see also Klay v. United Healthgroup,
Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir. 2004). As explained in detail in Sections A–C
of Defendants’ response brief, Plaintiff has not met his burden to establish these
elements because he has failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits. (See Doc. # 15, at 15–25.)
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion for temporary restraining order
(Doc. # 1) is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that this case is REFERRED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b), to the Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and entry of any orders
or recommendations as may be appropriate.
DONE this 3rd day of August, 2012.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF 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?