Carter v. Department of Corrections (INMATE 2), No. 3:2009cv00651 - Document 3 (M.D. Ala. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Plaintiff's 1 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order is due to be and hereby is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that this case is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr. for action or recommendation on all pretrial matters including the pending motion for preliminary injunction. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 7/13/2009. (dmn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION SEAN M. CARTER Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, HEAD QUARTERS Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 3:09-CV-651-MEF MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On July 13, 2009, Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing a Complaint (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting Defendant from continuing to infringe upon his Belief by serving him meat and forcing him to cut his hair. This Court now addresses Plaintiff s request for a temporary restraining order. A district court may issue a preliminary injunction where the moving party demonstrates (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000); McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998); All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989). [A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly established the burden of persuasion as to each of the four prerequisites. McDonald's Corp., 147 F.3d at 1306 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated his First Amendment rights by serving him meat and cutting his hair. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and has not shown that irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues. Further, the Court finds that the threatened injury to the movant does not outweigh the damage the temporary restraining order may cause Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff s Motion for Temporary restraining order (Doc. # 1) is due to be and hereby is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that this case is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Wallace Capel for action or recommendation on all pretrial matters including the pending motion for preliminary injunction. DONE this the day of July 13, 2009. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
