JACKSON v. FROMM

Filing 22

ORDER: Plaintiff's 19 Motion for an Emergency Injunction is DENIED. 20 MOTION (TITLED: Notice to Court) to include correct name and name under which booked is GRANTED. Clerk shall address all correspondence to Plaintiff as: DARRELL L MOORE/DARRELL L JACKSON. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 12/27/2012. (jws)(Updated data per Order.)

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
DARRELL L. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 5:11-cv-414-RS-GRJ

H. FROMM,
Defendants.
_______________________/
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Doc. 19, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Emergency
Injunction, and Doc. 20, Plaintiff’s Notice to the Court. Plaintiff alleges that correctional
officers at the Gwinnett County Detention Center, where Plaintiff is currently
incarcerated, have denied him access to materials with which to prepare his legal
papers, and postage to mail documents to the Court. Plaintiff also asserts that the law
library refuses to make copies of his legal materials. Plaintiff requests an injunction to
direct correctional officers to supply him with the necessary materials. For the following
reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is due to be denied. Plaintiff’s notice to the Court indicates
that he has been booked under an incorrect name, and requests the Court to send
orders to him under his proper name and the incorrect name. This request is due to be
granted.
Granting or denying a preliminary injunction is a decision within the discretion of
the district court. Carillon Importers, Ltd. v. Frank Pesce Intern. Group Ltd., 112 F.3d
1125, 1126 (11th Cir. 1997), citing United States v. Lambert, 695 F.2d 536, 539 (11th
Cir. 1983). Guiding this discretion is the required finding that plaintiff establish:

Page 2 of 4

(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted;
(3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiffs outweighs the harm an
injunction may cause the defendant; and
(4) that granting the injunction would not disserve the public interest.
Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000); Carillon Importers, Ltd., 112
F.3d at 1126; United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1519 (11th Cir. 1983).
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy and should not be
granted unless the movant "clearly carries the burden of persuasion" of all four
prerequisites, which is always upon the plaintiff. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d at 1519,
citing Canal Auth. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1974).
Plaintiff makes generalized claims that the correctional officers’ behavior has
kept him from being able to fully present his legal arguments. However, he does not
allege substantial facts supporting a threat of irreparable injury. Plaintiff is clearly able
to prepare documents to submit to the Court, based on the filing of the instant motion
and his simultaneously-filed notice to the Court. (Doc. 20.) Based on the facts alleged
in Plaintiff’s motion, he fails to carry his burden of persuasion on any of the four factors
warranting injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s allegations that the Gwinnett County Detention
Center officers have prevented him from typing and copying papers are not sufficient to
invoke the drastic remedy of a preliminary injunction, especially where Plaintiff asks the
Court to direct correctional officials as to the administration of the prison library.
Furthermore, to the extent that Plaintiff challenges these officers’ actions on
constitutional grounds, that issue is not before the Court in the instant case.
Case No: 5:11-cv-414-MW-GRJ

Page 3 of 4

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff asks the Court to bind non-parties to an order
issued by this Court, his motion is flawed. The Defendant in this case is H. Fromm, a
nurse at the Northwest Florida Reception Center. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff does not name
Defendant Fromm as specifically engaging in the activities he alleges warrant a
preliminary injunction. Rule 65(d), which governs motions for a preliminary injunction,
provides inter alia: "Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order . . . is
binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees,
and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who
receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise." FED . R. CIV. P.
65(d). "It is elementary that one is not bound by a judgment in personam resulting from
litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a
party by service of process." Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S.
100, 110, 89 S. Ct. 1562, 1569, 23 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1969) (citation omitted). This Court
must have jurisdiction over a party to adjudicate a claim. Therefore, the only parties
mentioned in the motion for a preliminary injunction, unnamed correctional officers at
the Gwinnett County Detention Center, would not be bound by an order issued by this
Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Emergency Injunction, Doc. 19, is DENIED.

(2)

Plaintiff’s request that the Court address future mailings to him under both
his correct name, Darrell Jackson, and the name under which he is
booked, Darrell Moore, is GRANTED. The Clerk shall address all
correspondence to Plaintiff as follows: Darrell L. Moore/ Darrell L.
Jackson, 99332101, Gwinnett County Detention Center,Dorm 2-G, cell

Case No: 5:11-cv-414-MW-GRJ

Page 4 of 4

309-B, 2900 University Parkway, Lawrenceville, GA 30043.
DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of December 2012.

s/Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 5:11-cv-414-MW-GRJ