Oliver v. Napier et al (INMATE 2)
ORDER denying 20 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/17/2013. (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DAVID O. OLIVER, #285 230,
VICTOR NAPIER, et al.,
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-14-WKW
Before the court is Plaintiff David O. Oliver’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO”).
Mr. Oliver is an inmate incarcerated at Kilby
Correctional Facility located in Mt. Meigs, Alabama. As grounds for a TRO, he
asserts that the warden and two named correctional officers are “constantly harassing
[him] because of [his] filing this Complaint. . . .” (Doc. # 20, at 1.)
A temporary restraining order may be issued without notice only if
(A) 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
(B) 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). A temporary restraining order also 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).1
Mr. Oliver has not demonstrated the requirements for Rule 65(b) relief. First,
Mr. Oliver’s motion does not contain sworn testimony. Second, Mr. Oliver has not
shown or argued that he will suffer immediate and irreparable injury if Defendants
are given an opportunity to respond to the motion. Third, Mr. Oliver has not
demonstrated that a TRO is necessary to prevent irreparable injury. Fourth, he has
not certified in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should
not be required. Fifth, he has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(Doc. # 20) is DENIED.
DONE this 17th day of April, 2013.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
These four elements are “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) irreparable injury absent an injunction; (3) the injury outweighs whatever damage an
injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) an injunction is not adverse to the public
interest.” Citizens for Police Accountability Political Comm. v. Browning, 572 F.3d 1213, 1217
(11th Cir. 2009).
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?