Logan v. Smith et al

Filing 191

ORDER denying 190 pro se request, with instructions to the Clerk. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey on 4/10/2014. (DD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

JAMES ALEXANDER LOGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:07-cv-1156-J-JBT

CAPT. A . P. SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff Logan's pro se Emergency Notice to the
Court (Doc. #190), in which Plaintiff asserts that he has been subjected to numerous
retaliatory acts, including several beatings by correctional officers.1 It is unclear exactly what
relief he seeks; however, he requests the Court to protect his life and safety. Thus, it
appears he is seeking some sort of injunctive relief. The Court previously denied a similar
request. See Order (Doc. #145), filed August 17, 2012. This current request is due to be
denied for the same reasons.
Specifically, Plaintiff failed to comply with the strictures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and Local
Rules 4.05 and 4.06. Further, Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts on which the Court can
make a reasoned determination as to the amount of security which must be posted pursuant
1

Plaintiff also complains that the attorney appointed to represent him in this case (which
concerns events that allegedly occurred on August 30, 2007) has not responded to Plaintiff's
requests for assistance regarding these other matters. Plaintiff should note that counsel was
appointed to represent Plaintiff in this case only and is not under any obligation to assist
Plaintiff with other matters.

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). Additionally, he did not prepare a proposed form of temporary
restraining order and/or preliminary injunction in accordance with the requirements contained
in Rule 65(b) and (d), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Moreover, upon review of the record, Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief.
A TRO or preliminary injunction is appropriate where the
movant demonstrates that:
(a) there is a substantial likelihood of success on
the merits;
(b) the TRO or preliminary injunction is necessary
to prevent irreparable injury;
(c) the threatened injury outweighs the harm that
the TRO or preliminary injunction would cause to
the non-movant; and
(d) the TRO or preliminary injunction would not be
averse to the public interest.
See Zardui-Quintana v. Richard, 768 F.2d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir.
1985).
Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (11th Cir.) (per curiam)
(footnote omitted), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1072 (2001). The movant must clearly establish
the burden of persuasion as to all four prerequisites. See McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson,
147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998). Here, Plaintiff has failed address, let alone meet his
burden of persuasion as to these four prerequisites for injunctive relief.
Further, insofar as Plaintiff may be seeking a transfer from Florida State Prison, as
this Court previously observed, the decision of where to confine a particular inmate is within
the broad discretionary authority of custodial officials. This Court will not interfere with the
day-to-day decision-making of the prison officials concerning the housing assignments of
inmates, as that is the type of decision which typically is made by prison administrators with

2

the expertise to make these decisions, taking into account the safety and security of prison
staff and inmates.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief, contained in his pro se Emergency
Notice to the Court (Doc. #190), is DENIED. However, in an abundance of caution, the
Clerk shall send a copy of the Emergency Notice to the Court (Doc. #190) and this Order
to the Inspector General for the Florida Department of Corrections for whatever action may
be deemed appropriate in light of Plaintiff's allegations regarding retaliatory acts.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 10th day of April, 2014.

ps 4/10
c:
Counsel of Record
James Alexander Logan

3