Shabazz v. Secretary, Department of Corrections et al
ORDER denying as moot 32 Motion for Modification or Clarification of Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order; denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction. Plaintiff shall file a notice within 14 days and clarify whether he seeks to enjoin defendants from enforcing the half-inch grooming policy. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 3/12/2018. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ABDUL HAKEEN JAHMAL NASEER
SHABAZZ aka Owen D. Denson,
Assistant Warden, Official
capacity, PATRICK MURPHY,
Warden, Official capacity,
and W. MILLETTE,
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for
Restraining Order (Doc. #40) and exhibit in support (Doc. 40-1) on
December 4, 2017.
By way of background, this case was originally filed in the
Tampa Division and transferred to this Court (Doc. #31) on November
On November 17, 2017, prior to transfer, the Court
issued a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #17) which directed
that the Defendants “shall not require Plaintiff to shave his
beard” and “shall not impose discipline on Plaintiff for violation
of the Defendant’s grooming policy while this Restraining Order
remains in effect.”
Id. at 5.
According to the Order of Transfer,
dissolved by the district judge or by effect of law.”
Doc. 31 at
Rule 65 provides that a temporary retraining order “expires
at the time after entry—not to exceed 14 days—that the court sets,
unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for
a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2).
Here, the Court did not extend the
Temporary Restraining Order and Defendants did not consent to a
Thus, by operation of law, the November 17,
Clements Wire & Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R. B., 589 F.2d 894,
896 (5th Cir. 1979); see also Levine v. Comcoa Ltd., 70 F.3d 1191,
temporary restraining order is an extreme remedy to be used only
with the utmost caution.
Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure imposes strict restrictions on its scope and specific
time constraints for its duration.”).
Consequently, because the
Temporary Restraining Order has expired, Defendants’ Motion is
- 2 -
The Court, in considering whether Plaintiff is entitled to a
preliminary injunction at this stage of the proceedings, notes
that Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #39), with supporting
exhibits (Doc. #39-1 through #39-6) on December 1, 2017, to which
Opposition (Doc. #50) on December 20, 2017.
Defendants, in their
Response, note that the FDOC has a grooming policy that permits
inmates to have a half-inch beard.
Doc. 39 at 3.
part, the Florida Administrative Code provides:
All inmates shall elect either to be clean shaven or to
grow and maintain a half-inch beard. Such a beard shall
include all the hair that grows naturally on the face
and front of the neck, excluding eyebrows and eyelashes.
. . . Those male inmates who desire to remain clean
shaven shall be clipper shaved three times per week, and
those inmates who desire to grow a half-inch beard shall
have their beards trimmed three times per week with a
clipper with a half-inch guard.
Fla. Admin. Code, Ch. 33-602.101 Care of Inmates (4)-(5).
grooming policy also is set forth in the DeSoto Correctional
Institution Inmate Handbook that is distributed to all inmates.
Doc. #39-2 at 4, Doc. #39-3 at ¶6.
Defendants submit that the
FDOC’s grooming policy complies with the Supreme Court’s decision
in Holt v. Hobbs, ___U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 853, 862 (Jan. 20, 2015).
From a review of Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. #16) and Plaintiff’s
Second Objection (Doc. #50), it is unclear whether Plaintiff
contends that the FDOC current grooming policy that permits a one-
- 3 -
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”) and Religious
and Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) Act, or
whether he claims that the FDOC nonetheless enforces a policy of
mandating that all inmates be “bald shaved,” which the Court
interprets to mean that inmates are not permitted to have any
growth of hair on their faces.
Consequently, before ruling on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court will
direct Plaintiff to clarify which Defendants’ policy or actions he
seeks to enjoin.
Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion
for Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction (Doc. #56)
filed on January 16, 2018, to which Defendants filed a Response in
Opposition (Doc. #60) on January 30, 2018.
Plaintiff states that
on January 8, 2018, 1 he was moved from his dorm due to a water leak
and told to store his legal papers in a locker.
Doc. 60 at 5.
Plaintiff claims that his legal documents stored in his locker
were confiscated by Officer Backer when he went to the law library
on January 9, 2018.
Plaintiff admits he was provided with a
confiscation slip by Officer Backer.
claims that, on the same date, Defendant Sanchez came into his
living quarters and placed his right foot on top of the locker
The Motion states the events happened in 2017. Motion at
The Court believes this to be a scrivener’s error.
- 4 -
inspecting Plaintiff’s cell. Id. at 6.
Plaintiff claims these
acts were done in retaliation for Plaintiff having filed this
action and in contempt of the Temporary Restraining Order.
The Court having reviewed the Motion finds no emergency, and
labeling a motion as an emergency in the future.
M.D. Fla. R.
Although labeled as seeking a “preliminary and permanent
injunction,” the Motion does not address any of the four factors
required to obtain a preliminary injunction 2 and otherwise does
not contain a request for relief.
Further, to the extent
that Plaintiff contends that the actions violated the Temporary
Restraining Order, as noted above, the Temporary Restraining Order
Accordingly, it is hereby
The four prerequisites for a preliminary injunction are:
(1) a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits; (2) a
substantial threat of irreparable injury if relief is denied; (3)
an injury that outweighs the opponent’s potential injury if relief
is not granted; and (4) an injunction would not harm or do a
disservice to the public interest. Bloedorn v. Grube, 631 F.3d
1218, 1229 (11th Cir. 2011); Burk v. Augusta-Richmond Cnty., 365
F.3d 1247, 1262-63 (11th Cir. 2004). The movant bears the burden
GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 788 F.3d 1318,
1322 (11th Cir. 2015); Siegel v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th
Cir. 2000)(en banc).
- 5 -
1. Defendants' Motion for Modification or Clarification of Order
Granting Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #32) is DENIED as
2. Plaintiff shall file a notice to the Court within fourteen
(14) days of this Order and clarify whether he seeks to enjoin
Defendants from enforcing FDOC’ half-inch grooming policy
that permits inmates to grow a half-inch beard.
3. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and
Permanent Injunction (Doc. #56) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of March, 2018.
Pro Se Plaintiff
Counsel of Record
- 6 -
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?