D'Amico v. Montoya et al

Filing 5

ORDER denying #4 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Brian J. Davis on 9/10/2020. (KLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
STEVEN F. D’AMICO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:20-cv-920-J-39PDB

VERNON MONTOYA et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s sworn motion for preliminary
injunction (Doc. 4; Motion). Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
Order directing

officials at

Liberty Correctional Institution

(LCI) to cease forcing him to do “hard labor.” See Motion at 1.
Plaintiff asserts prison officials assigned him to work in food
service despite his age and multiple medical conditions (leukemia,
chronic back pain, a hernia, and urological issues), allegedly in
retaliation for filing this civil rights lawsuit. Id. at 2-3. He
says his work assignment requires him to “lift and strain for ten
hours a day.” Id. at 3.
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

Cir.

relief,

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 does not demonstrate he faces
irreparable

injury.

While

he

may

find

his

work

assignment

challenging given his age and physical ailments, Plaintiff offers
no evidence substantiating that he faces actual and imminent harm
2

if he continues working in food service. Second, Plaintiff’s motion
is based entirely upon incidents that occurred after he filed the
operative complaint (Doc. 1; Compl.) involving individuals at a
different correctional institution. In his complaint, Plaintiff
alleges medical staff at the Reception and Medical Center (RMC)
“hatefully discontinued cancer treatment . . . as reprisal for
[Plaintiff’s] many complaints.” See Compl. at 8, 10. Though the
relief Plaintiff seeks in his motion is in part based on the fact
that he has cancer, the motion “deals with a matter lying wholly
outside the issues in the suit.”1 See Kaimowitz, 122 F.3d at 43.
Finally,

even

if

Plaintiff

could

demonstrate

he

faces

irreparable injury and seeks relief related to issues raised in
his complaint, he fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on
the

merits

of

his

underlying

claim.

Plaintiff’s

self-serving

allegations in his complaint and attached grievances are not
sufficient to show he is likely to succeed against Defendants. See
S. Wine & Spirits of Am., Inc. v. Simpkins, No. 10-21136-Civ, 2011
WL

124631,

at

*2

(S.D.

Fla.

Jan.

14,

2011)

(“A

substantial

Plaintiff alleges he “was assigned to work in food service
by supervisory [LCI] staff in July and again in August” in apparent
retaliation for filing this complaint “and others.” See Motion at
2. To the extent Plaintiff attempts to demonstrate a causal
connection between the claims he raises in this case and the relief
he seeks in his motion, his allegations are not convincing. For
instance, Plaintiff initiated this action on August 5, 2020, after
he allegedly was assigned to work in food service. See Compl. at
1. Additionally, as noted, his complaint is against medical
providers at RMC, not those at LCI.
1

3

likelihood of success on the merits is shown if good reasons for
anticipating that result are demonstrated. It is not enough that
a merely colorable claim is advanced.”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for injunctive relief (Doc.
4) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 10th day of
September 2020.

Jax-6
c:
Steven F. D’Amico

4