Logan v. Clemmons et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying 56 Plaintiff's Motion for a restraining order. Signed by Judge Brian J. Davis on 6/17/2019. (KLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
JAMES ALEXANDER LOGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-765-J-39PDB

M.C. CLEMMONS et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________
ORDER
Before

the

Court

is

Plaintiff’s

Motion

titled

“Judicial

Notice for Judicial Action” (Doc. 56; Motion). Plaintiff requests
that the Court enter a restraining order against non-Defendant
officers. Motion at 1, 3. Plaintiff asserts Defendants “are using
other correctional officers . . . to retaliate[] against [him] by
way of falsifying [disciplinary reports].” Id. at 1. He contends
non-Defendant correctional officers have been sexually harassing
and verbally threatening him, and his life is in danger. Id. at 12, 4.1 He states the Warden fails to take corrective action, and
the “Inspector General is also down with cover up for the[]
officers.” Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff does not explain Defendants’
alleged roles in the retaliatory conduct.

In light of Plaintiff’s assertions, the Clerk of Court sent a
copy of Plaintiff’s Motion and the Amended Standing Order (Doc.
57) that is entered when an inmate makes a claim of suicidal intent
or other imminent physical harm, to the Inspector General and to
the Warden of Suwannee Correctional Institution.
1

Injunctive
restraining

relief,

order

or

whether
a

in

the

preliminary

form

of

a

temporary

injunction,

“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 (11th Cir. 2000)). To obtain injunctive relief, a movant
must demonstrate the following four elements:
(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). A request for injunctive relief is properly denied
when the movant seeks relief with respect to claims outside those
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.”).
The Court is of the opinion that injunctive relief is not
warranted. First, Plaintiff improperly seeks injunctive relief
against individuals who are not Defendants in this action, for
matters

“lying

wholly

outside

the
2

issues

in

the

suit.”

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). Second, Plaintiff’s
request does not 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) include a supporting memorandum of law.
See Rules 4.05(b)(1)-(4), 4.06, Local Rules of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s

Motion

is

DENIED.

If

Plaintiff

believes he has suffered new constitutional violations at the hands
of other officers who are not parties to this action, he may
initiate a new civil rights case by filing a new complaint.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 14th day of
June, 2019.

Jax-6
c:
James Alexander Logan
Counsel of Record
3