Williams v. Womble et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 20

ORDER denying 19 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; further ORDERED that the 19 motion for a preliminary injunction is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings and a recommendation. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 12/29/2015. (wcl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION RONNIE V. WILLIAMS, #239426, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH WOMBLE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:15-CV-728-WKW [WO] ORDER Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”). Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining ADOC officials “from questioning [him] about any matters already being reviewed within this court[ ].” (Doc. # 19.) The motion for a temporary restraining order is due to be denied, and the motion for preliminary injunction will be referred to the Magistrate Judge. A temporary restraining order may be granted without notice 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 has 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 Plaintiff falls short of meeting the prerequisites for the exceptional remedy of a temporary restraining order. First, he does not allege any concrete facts to support a finding that a temporary restraining order is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable injury before Defendants can be heard in opposition. Second, he has not submitted a verified complaint or affidavit in support of his allegations. Third, Plaintiff has not submitted the certification required by Rule 65(b)(1)(B). Fourth, he has not argued or demonstrated that he has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. # 19) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. # 19) is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings and a recommendation. DONE this 29th day of December, 2015. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 These four elements are “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a threat of irreparable injury, (3) that its own injury would outweigh the injury to the nonmovant, and (4) that the injunction would not disserve the public interest.” Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286, 1295 (11th Cir. 1999). 2

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?