Hastings v. Drake (INMATE 1)

Filing 3

ORDER construing 1 Motion for Permanent Injunction as a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion for preliminary injunction; denying 1 Motion for TRO ; further ORDERING that the 1 motion for preliminary injunction is referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge for action or recommendation on all pretrial matters. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 6/18/13. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist) (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
RAYMOND HASTINGS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 2:13-cv-418
(WO—Do not publish)

KIM TOBIAS THOMAS, Commissioner
of the Alabama Department of
Corrections, et al.,
Defendants.

O RDER
Before the Court is Raymond Hastings’s Motion for Emergency Injunction. (Doc. #
1.) The Court construes this pleading as a motion for a temporary restraining order and a
motion for preliminary injunction. Hastings, a pro se prisoner in the Easterling Correctional
Facility in Clio, Alabama, claims that he was beaten by a correctional officer, Lieutenant

Kenneth Drake on June 12, 2013, and is now is hurt and “scared to death” of Lieutenant
Drake and several other of the correctional officers. In his motion, Hastings requests that
the Court order Lieutenant Drake to stay away from him and order the prison warden to
ensure that no more harm comes to him. Because Hastings 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).
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 in an affidavit or a verified complaint . . . that immediate and irreparable
injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in
opposition.” 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. Thus, denying a party the chance to be heard requires
the moving party to make a persuasive showing of necessity. With this in mind, Hastings’s
request for a temporary restraining order fails because he has not clearly shown that he is in
imminent danger. Although Hastings has set forth in detail the injuries allegedly inflicted
on him by Lieutenant Drake in the past, Hastings has not alleged any specific conduct on the
1

Rule 65 also has a procedural component. But since Hastings cannot meet the rule’s substantive
standards, the Court need not concern itself with addressing the procedural issues.

2

part of Lieutenant Drake that shows he is at immediate risk of suffering injury in the future.
Hastings has not alleged anything that Lieutenant Drake has done or any threats made after
the alleged June 12, 2013 beating suggesting that Lieutenant Drake or other officers pose an
immediate threat to his safety.
Because Hastings has presented no facts showing that he is in immediate danger of
being harmed by Lieutenant Drake or others, the Court finds that Hastings’s request for a
temporary restraining order is more appropriately considered a request for a preliminary
injunction and a claim for permanent injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #1) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #1) is REFERRED to the assigned Magistrate
Judge for action or recommendation on all pretrial matters.

DONE this the 18th day of June, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3