Harris v. Dixon et al
ORDER denying 30 Plaintiff's motion for emergency protection; denying 31 Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and injunction. Signed by Judge Brian J. Davis on 1/17/2023. (KLC)
Case 3:22-cv-00667-BJD-LLL Document 32 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 311
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 3:22-cv-667-BJD-LLL
RICKY DIXON, et al.,
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for emergency protection (Doc. 30)
and Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and injunction (Doc. 31).
Plaintiff contends staff at his correctional institution have escalated their
abuse “from verbal threats to physical assault” in apparent retaliation for
Plaintiff filing lawsuits in this Court and in the Fort Meyers Division or for
serving as a “witness in federal litigation.”1 Doc. 30 at 1-2; Doc. 31 at 1. Plaintiff
alleges an officer sprayed him with chemical agents on December 26, 2022,
telling him, “If you don’t stop with the lawsuits you’ll never make it home.”
Doc. 30 at 1; Doc. 31 at 1. Another officer then choked him. Doc. 31 at 1. He
says all his personal property, including his legal materials, have been taken
Although unclear, it appears the “federal litigation” for which Plaintiff is
referring to himself as a “witness” are the civil rights actions he initiated.
Case 3:22-cv-00667-BJD-LLL Document 32 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 312
“to further discourage and hinder [his] litigation against [Florida Department
of Corrections] staff.” See Doc. 31 at 2. As relief, Plaintiff seeks an order (1)
directing officers to stop assaulting/threatening him and confiscating his legal
mail; and (2) directing that he be transferred to another prison. Doc. 31 at 2.
Injunctive relief, whether in the form of a temporary restraining order
or a preliminary 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 demonstrate entitlement to injunctive relief, a
movant must show the following 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
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
Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 31) is facially insufficient. For
one thing, he has not complied with this Court’s Local Rules, which require
that a motion for injunctive relief be supported by a verified complaint or
Case 3:22-cv-00667-BJD-LLL Document 32 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 313
affidavits showing the movant is threatened with irreparable injury, describe
precisely the conduct sought to be enjoined, and include a supporting
memorandum of law. See M.D. Fla. R. 6.01, 6.02(a)(1). Plaintiff’s conclusory
assertions, even if true, do not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the
merits of his claim or that he faces irreparable injury.
Moreover, inmates do not have a constitutional right to be housed at a
particular penal institution. See 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.”); Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 936 (11th Cir.
1989) (“[I]nmates usually possess no constitutional right to be housed at one
prison over another.”). And an order directing prison officials that they may
not violate an inmate’s constitutional rights would not satisfy Rule 65’s
specificity requirement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1) (requiring an order
granting injunctive relief to “state its terms specifically and describe in
reasonable detail . . . the act or acts restrained or required” (internal
punctuation and numbering omitted)). See also Burton v. City of Belle Glade,
178 F.3d 1175, 1201 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding the district court “correctly
determined that an injunction ordering the City not to discriminate in [the]
future . . . would not satisfy the specificity requirements of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure”). Plaintiff may initiate a new civil rights case if he believes
Case 3:22-cv-00667-BJD-LLL Document 32 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 314
officers have violated his constitutional rights since he initiated this and other
Accordingly, it is
Plaintiff’s motion for emergency protection (Doc. 30) is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and injunction
(Doc. 31) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 17th day of
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?