State of Alabama v. Johns (INMATE 2), No. 2:2019cv00118 - Document 15 (M.D. Ala. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that the 4 motion for preliminary injunction is denied. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 4/5/2019. (alm, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
State of Alabama v. Johns (INMATE 2) Doc. 15 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION STATE OF ALABAMA, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES KELVIN JOHNS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19cv118-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER Although this lawsuit bears a 'civil' action number, it began as a 'criminal' case in state court against defendant Charles Johns, an inmate incarcerated at the Bullock Correctional Facility in Union Springs, Alabama. Johns removed the state criminal case to this federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), which provides for removal of criminal prosecutions that involve denial or non-enforcement in state court of “a right under any law providing for [ ] equal civil rights.” His case appears to be on appeal in the state-court system. See Notice of Removal (doc. no. 1). Pending before the court is Johns’s request for a preliminary Dockets.Justia.com injunction. He seeks to enjoin the president of the First National Bank of Brundidge in Brundidge, Alabama, from denying him access to funds he claims are maintained under his name and social security number at the bank. See Motion for Injunction (doc. no. 4) at 1. He asserts he requires access to the funds to retain counsel of his choice to pay necessary legal expenses and fees in this removed action. court concludes that the Upon review, the motion for preliminary injunction should be denied. The decision injunction “is to within district court....” 1329 (11th preliminary demonstrates Cir. grant or deny the sound a preliminary discretion of the Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 2002). injunction each This only following court if the may grant moving prerequisites: a party (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will occur absent issuance of the injunction; (3) the threatened 2 injury outweighs the potential damage the requested injunction may cause the non-moving parties; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Corp. v. 1998); Robertson, 147 F.3d See id.; McDonald's 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176, 1185 (11th Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352, 1354-55 (11th Cir. 1983). party’s failure to demonstrate a The moving “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” may defeat the party’s entitlement to relief, regardless of the party’s ability to establish any of the other elements. Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1342 (11th Cir. 1994); see also Siegel v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting that “the absence of a substantial standing likelihood alone, improper”). “‘The injunction is merits the of make to of irreparable preliminary chief function preserve the controversy can 3 injury would, injunctive relief of status be a quo fully preliminary until and the fairly adjudicated.’” 268 F.3d Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 1257, Northeastern Contractors 1265 Fla. of (11th Cir. Chapter America v. of City 2001) (quoting Associated of Jacksonville, Gen. 896 F.2d 1283, 1284 (11th Cir. 1990)). Regarding the first prerequisite for issuance of preliminary-injunctive relief, Johns fails to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. He has failed to establish that he has been improperly denied access to funds for legal expenses which he claims he has at the First National Bank of Brundidge. Furthermore, the National Bank of Brundidge is not a party in this lawsuit; therefore, this court lacks authority to order it to produce any funds. respect Nor to has the Johns other made a strong showing preliminary-injunction with factors. Although Johns asserts a denial of the right to hire the counsel of his choice in his state-court criminal proceedings and in this removed 4 proceeding, this allegation is insufficient to show the necessary likelihood of irreparable harm absent issuance of an injunction. court. the has appointed of persuasion” irreparable regarding injury preliminary injunction. 1306. counsel in the state Consequently, he has not “clearly established burden suffer He in whether the absence he will of a McDonald's Corp., 147 F.3d at Finally, it is unclear what Johns’s requested relief would entail; this lack of clarity prevents the court from determining what burden an injunction would have and whether interest. Issuing issuing a one would preliminary harm the injunction public is not warranted. *** For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the motion for preliminary injunction (doc. denied. DONE, this the 5th day of April, 2019. 5 no. 4) is /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
