Miceli v. Patrick et al (INMATE 2)
ORDER denying 2 Motion for Temporary restraining order, as further set out in order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 1/20/16. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist) (djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CHARLES N. MICELI
JIMMY PATRICK, et al.,
) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-39-WKW
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Petition for Emergency Temporary Restraining
(Doc. # 1.)
Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Alabama
Department of Corrections (“ADOC”). In his pro se petition, Plaintiff seeks a
temporary restraining order enjoining ADOC officials from engaging in certain
conduct. First, he seeks to enjoin them from “plac[ing] [him] into a dry cell or
strip[ping] him from his clothing, bedding or property” without due process or just
cause. (Doc. # 1, at 7.) Second, he requests that ADOC officials be enjoined from
“using any types of physical and or chemical agents” against him for health
reasons. (Doc. # 1, at 7.) Third, he requests that all disciplinary actions taken by
ADOC officials be “reviewable by this court within a reasonable time frame”
should they be used against him. (Doc. # 1, at 7.) Upon careful consideration, the
motion for a temporary restraining order is due to be denied.
A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary form of relief. Such an
order should issue only where the moving party demonstrates (1) that there is a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that the injunction is necessary
to prevent irreparable injury, (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the
temporary restraining order would cause to the nonmoving party, and (4) that the
temporary restraining order would not be adverse to the public interest. Parker v.
State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034–35 (11th Cir. 2001). Under
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a temporary restraining order may
issue without notice to the nonmoving party only if (a) specific facts in an affidavit
or verified complaint show that the moving party will suffer immediate and
irreparable injury before the adverse party can be heard, and (b) the moving party
certifies in writing the efforts it has made to notify the nonmoving party and the
reasons notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). For several
reasons, Plaintiff fails to show that he is entitled to this extraordinary remedy.
First, Plaintiff fails to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his
claim. Though he seeks redress for deprivation of his constitutional rights, his
verified complaint does not indicate the manner in which ADOC officials have
violated his rights. He merely articulates a perceived threat, indicating that ADOC
officials have not yet placed him in administrative confinement.
Second, Plaintiff fails to show that a temporary restraining order is necessary
to prevent immediate and irreparable injury. He avers that ADOC officials warned
him to stay quiet in his cell, or else be put into a “dry cell.” This is insufficient to
show that immediate, irreparable injury will ensue in the absence of emergency
Third, Plaintiff fails to show that this relief would not be adverse to the
public interest. The administration of prisons is a matter of particular interest to
the states, and federal courts do not sit to supervise their daily operations. See
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 228–29 (1976).
It is unclear how judicial
intervention is justified under these circumstances.
Fourth, with respect to the propriety of granting ex parte relief, Plaintiff
failed to certify any reason that notice to the nonmoving parties is unnecessary.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
restraining order (Doc. # 1) is DENIED.
DONE this 20th day of January, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?