Holland v. Perry et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 50 Plaintiff's Motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Signed by Judge Brian J. Davis on 11/20/2019. (KLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
DANNY HOLLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-23-J-25PDB

SERGEANT JAMIE W. WILLIAMS et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Injunction [sic]
Relief and/or Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. 50; Motion).
Plaintiff requests the Court order the Florida Department of
Corrections (FDOC) to provide necessary medical treatment for him
by transferring him somewhere other than Regional Medical Center
(RMC), which is where he was beaten by officers in 2015. See Motion
at 2. Plaintiff concedes the FDOC has not denied him medical care.
Id. at 1. Rather, on three occasions, Plaintiff refused to be sent
to RMC to receive medical treatment because he fears for his safety
if sent to that correctional institution. Id.
Injunctive
restraining

relief,

order

or

whether
a

in

the

preliminary

form

of

a

injunction,

temporary
“is

an

‘extraordinary and drastic remedy,’ and [the movant] bears the
‘burden of persuasion.’” Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d

1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d
1163,

1176

injunctive

(11th
relief,

Cir.
a

2000)).
movant

To
must

demonstrate
show

the

entitlement
following

to

four

prerequisites:
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be
suffered if the relief is not granted; (3)
that the threatened injury outweighs the harm
the relief would inflict on the non-movant;
and (4) that entry of the relief would serve
the public interest.
Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225–26 (11th
Cir. 2005). With respect to the second prerequisite, “the asserted
irreparable injury ‘must be neither remote nor speculative, but
actual and imminent.’” Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176. Moreover, the
request for injunctive relief must be related to the claims raised
in the operative complaint. See Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122
F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997), opinion amended on reh’g, 131 F.3d
950 (11th Cir. 1997) (“A district court should not issue an
injunction when the injunction in question is not of the same
character, and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues
in the suit.”).
Plaintiff fails to carry his burden demonstrating injunctive
relief is warranted. First, Plaintiff asserts no facts suggesting
he faces an imminent threat of harm. Rather, the asserted injury
is remote and speculative. See Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176. Plaintiff
2

simply alleges he fears being harmed if sent to RMC where he was
beaten nearly five years ago. He provides no facts, however,
suggesting his fears are warranted. Second, Plaintiff’s motion is
based entirely upon incidents that occurred after he filed the
operative complaint (Doc. 14; Compl.) and involves individuals who
are not Defendants in this action. For instance, in his complaint,
Plaintiff asserts claims against three corrections officers at RMC
for an alleged beating that occurred on January 11, 2015. See
Compl. at 5. In his Motion, however, Plaintiff complains about a
current

medical

treatment

plan

by

officials

at

Santa

Rosa

Correctional Institution. See Motion at 1-2. See Kaimowitz, 122
F.3d at 43 (holding the district court did not err in denying a
motion for preliminary injunction that sought relief on a claim
not raised in the pleadings).1
Third, in his Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to order FDOC
to transfer him to an institution other than RMC for his medical
treatment. This Court may not take such action. Courts generally
will not interfere in matters of prison administration, including
an inmate’s location of confinement. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.

Even if some of the medical conditions for which Plaintiff
now requires treatment are related to the 2015 incident involving
Defendants in this case, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief
is not connected to the issues in this suit. While Plaintiff states
in the “Injuries” section of his complaint that he “didn’t receive
adequate medical attention,” he does not assert such a claim
against Defendants. See Compl. at 5.
3
1

520,

547-48

(1979)

(“[T]he

operation

of

our

correctional

facilities is peculiarly the province of the Legislative and
Executive Branches . . . not the Judicial.”). See also McKune v.
Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 39 (2002) (“It is well settled that the decision
where to house inmates is at the core of prison administrators’
expertise.”).
Finally,

it

is

unclear

whether

Plaintiff

sought

relief

through the prison grievance process to address his safety concerns
about being sent to RMC. Plaintiff should know that an inmate’s
attempt to bypass proper procedures is relevant to a court’s
consideration of a request for injunctive relief. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (“When a prison inmate seeks
injunctive relief, a court need not ignore the inmate’s failure to
take advantage of adequate prison procedures, and an inmate who
needlessly bypasses such procedures may properly be compelled to
pursue them.”).
Not

only

does

Plaintiff

fail

to

meet

the

substantive

prerequisites for injunctive relief, he fails to comply with this
Court’s Local Rules, which require that a motion for injunctive
relief (1) be supported by a verified complaint or affidavits
showing the movant is threatened with irreparable injury; (2)
describe precisely the conduct sought to be enjoined; and (3)

4

include

a

supporting

memorandum

of

law.

See

M.D.

Fla.

R.

4.05(b)(1)-(4), 4.06.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 20th day of
November, 2019.

Jax-6
c:

Danny Holland, #Y40185
Counsel of Record

5