Carter v. Department of Corrections (INMATE 2)

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Plaintiff's 1 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order is due to be and hereby is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that this case is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr. for action or recommendation on all pretrial matters including the pending motion for preliminary injunction. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 7/13/2009. (dmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR T H E MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION S E A N M. CARTER P l a in tif f , v. D E P A R T M E N T OF CORRECTIONS, H E A D QUARTERS D e f e n d a n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 3:09-CV-651-MEF

M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER O n July 13, 2009, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing a Complaint (Doc. # 1). P lain tiff seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting Defendant from continuing to inf rin g e upon his "Belief" by serving him meat and forcing him to cut his hair. This Court n o w addresses Plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order. A district court may issue a preliminary injunction where the moving party d em o n strat es (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury w ill be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant o u tw e ig h s whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Siegel v. LePore, 234 F .3 d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000); McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (1 1 th Cir. 1998); All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1 5 3 7 (11th Cir. 1989). "[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy

n o t to be granted unless the movant clearly established the `burden of persuasion' " as to e a c h of the four prerequisites. McDonald's Corp., 147 F.3d at 1306 (internal citations and q u o tation s omitted). H e re , Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated his First Amendment rights by serving h im meat and cutting his hair. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a "su b stan tial likelihood of success on the merits" and has not shown that "irreparable injury w ill be suffered unless the injunction issues." Further, the Court finds that the threatened in ju ry to the movant does not outweigh the damage the temporary restraining order may c a u se Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary restraining order (Doc. # 1) is due to be and hereby is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that this case is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Wallace C a p e l for action or recommendation on all pretrial matters including the pending motion for p re lim in a ry injunction. D O N E this the day of July 13, 2009. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2