Williams v. Kilby Correctional Facility et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING plf's 31 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order; further ORDERING that the 31 MOTION for prelinary injunction is REFERRED to the Mag Judge for further proceedings and a recommendation. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 12/29/15. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
RONNIE V. WILLIAMS, #239426,
a.k.a., Ronald Vincent Williams,
Plaintiff,
v.
KILBY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-729-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. # 31.)
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. # 31) is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc.
# 31) is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings and a
recommendation.

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

DONE this 29th day of December, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3