Hutchins v. Myers et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 16

ORDER construing 15 Motion for Restraining Order as containing a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion for a preliminary injunction; ORDERED that Mr. Hutchins's 15 motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED; further ORDERED that Mr. Hutchins's 15 motion for a preliminary injunction is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 7/28/2016. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
TRAVIS HUTCHINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
WALTER MYERS, Warden,
individually and in his official
capacity, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-324-WHA
)
[WO]
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff Travis Hutchins’s motion for restraining order
(Doc. # 15), which is construed as containing a motion for a temporary restraining
order and a motion for a preliminary injunction against Defendants Walter Myers
and Nathaniel Lawson. Mr. Hutchins is a prisoner in the custody of the Alabama
Department of Corrections and is currently housed in Easterling Correctional
Facility. In his motion, Mr. Hutchins alleges that Warden Myers threatened to beat
him up and issued false disciplinary charges against him. Furthermore, Mr. Hutchins
contends that Captain Lawson sexually assaulted him and also threatened to beat
him up. He asserts that Warden Myers’s and Captain Lawson’s threats and conduct
have caused him to fear for his personal safety. He requests the issuance of a
“restraining order” against Defendants and a transfer to a different penal institution.
(Doc. # 15.) Upon careful consideration, the motion for a temporary restraining

order will be denied and the motion for a preliminary injunction will be referred to
the Magistrate Judge.
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 temporary restraining order 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, 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).
Mr. Hutchins falls short of meeting Rule 65(b)(1)’s prerequisites for the
exceptional remedy of a temporary restraining order. Mr. Hutchins has not certified
to the court why notice to Defendants should not be required.

Nor has he

demonstrated that he faces an ongoing threat of immediate and irreparable injury in
the absence of a temporary restraining order.

2

Mr. Hutchins also has not

demonstrated, or even argued, that he has a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Mr. Hutchins’s motion for a temporary
restraining order (Doc. # 15) is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Mr. Hutchins’s motion for a preliminary
injunction (Doc. # 15) is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge.
DONE this 28th day of July, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3