Jordan v. Copeland et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 31

ORDER construing 30 Motion as a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion to amend the complaint to add claims against additional dfts in relation to a series of incidents that occurred in August 2015; ORDERED that the 30 motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED; This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for appropriate proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 8/28/2015. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
MARK ALLEN JORDAN, # 273663
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN COPELAND, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 2:14-CV-1114-WKW
)
(WO)
)
)
)

ORDER
On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff Mark Allen Jordan, an inmate held by the
Alabama Department of Corrections at Staton Correctional Facility, filed a
complaint against Defendants Captain Copeland, Lieutenant Tate, and Lieutenant
Burk, alleging that they failed to protect him from violence and deprivation of
property by other inmates in relation to two separate incidents that occurred in
September and October, 2014. (Doc. # 1). Defendants have filed a special report
and answer. (Doc. # 22.) Plaintiff’s response to the special report and answer is
due September 10, 2015. (Doc. # 28.)
On August 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. # 30), which the court
CONSTRUES as a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion to
amend the complaint to add claims against additional defendants in relation to a
series of incidents that occurred in August 2015.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) provides for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order “only if specific facts in an affidavit or 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 only if the movant “certifies in
writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be
required.” Fed. R. 65(b)(1). Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order is
due to be denied because Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 65(b).
The facts alleged in the motion are not sworn or verified under oath.

As a

substantive matter, Plaintiff has not shown specific facts demonstrating that the
requested temporary restraining order enjoining “all D.O.C. officials from any
further abuse or harassment of any kind[]” is necessary to prevent immediate and
irreparable injury before the other side can be heard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(a).
Further, Plaintiff has not provided any certification as to why the motion should be
granted without first providing the Department of Corrections with notice, an
opportunity to respond, or a hearing.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion for temporary restraining
order (Doc. # 30) is DENIED. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge
for appropriate proceedings.
DONE this 28th day of August, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2