Bryant v. Morgan et al, No. 3:2010cv00055 - Document 19 (M.D. Fla. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER denying 15 Motion for preliminary injunction; denying 17 Motion to compel; denying 18 Motion to appoint counsel. Signed by Senior Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger on 5/12/2010. (TL)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bryant v. Morgan et al Doc. 19 r:··: ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION L ... • ~::·1 L..-~~ :... ) .I f " ;., I ' .~: D,l -' MICHAEL STEVEN BRYANT, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:10-cv-55-J-20MCR vs. SERGEANT MORGAN, et al., Defendants. ORDER Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at Charlotte Correctional Institution (hereinafter CCI) who is proceeding pro se, has filed a Motion Motion). for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #15) (hereinafter Plaintiff complains that there has been destruction or tampering with his legal mail by prison officials, falsification of documents by prison authorities, and some attempt to prevent him from pursuing this civil rights action. Support of Motion for Preliminary In his Declaration in Inj unction (Doc. #16) (hereinafter Declaration), Plaintiff claims that these actions have interfered with his criminal case as well as his civil rights case. As relief, Plaintiff seeks an injunction enjoining the Defendants, and those in concert with them, from "continuing the campaign of harassment against the Plaintiff." Motion at 1. The Court notes that Plaintiff is currently confined at CCI. The Defendants in the Amended Complaint (Doc. #8) are employees of Dockets.Justia.com Columbia Correctional Institution, Court notes that the institution where the Defendant officers not CCI. is he no At the outset, longer seeks to housed at enjoin work. the the The Amended Complaint concerns a claim of excessive use of force by Sgt. Morgan and an unnamed officer at Columbia Correctional Institution, and Sgt. Morgan's alleged failure to protect Plaintiff from the excessive use of force by the unnamed officer. blush, it would seem inappropriate for the Court At first to grant the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction, when the offense complained of cannot be repeated due to the current location of the Plaintiff. To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction, it is clear that he is not entitled to such relief. As an initial matter, it is clear that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the strictures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and Local Rules 4.05 and 4.06. Plaintiff has failed to set forth facts on which the Court can make a reasoned determination as to the amount of security which must be posted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). Additionally, Plaintiff did not submit a proposed form of temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction in accordance with the requirements contained in Rule 65(b) and (d), Fed. R. Civ. P., and the Local Rules. Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is due to be denied for the above-mentioned reasons. However, even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff properly filed his request for injunctive relief, 2 this Court is of the opinion that injunctive relief is not warranted at this time. A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary and drastic remedy." McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Memll Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989». To secure an injunction, a party must prove four elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury absent an injunction; (3) the injury outweighs whatever damage an inj unction may cause the opposing party; and (4) an injunction is not adverse to the public interest. Id. Citizens for 1213, 1217 Police Accountability Corom. (11th Cir. 2009) 1525932 (U.S. Apr. 19, 2010) (per curiam), (No. 09-861). v. Browning, cert. denied, 572 F.3d 2010 WL The movant must clearly establish the burden of persuasion as to all four prerequisites. See McDonald1s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998) . Plaintiff requests the Court enjoin the Defendants; however, the alleged actions were committed by individuals who are not named Defendants in this case. Thus, it does not appear that enjoining the Defendants would prevent any irreparable injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff1s general fear of harassment is both a remote possibility and certainly speculative. Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, that inj uncti ve relief is necessary to prevent irreparable injury, that the threatened injury outweighs the harm that the requested injunctive relief would cause to the Defendants, 3 and that the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Furthermore, Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he requests because he is attempting to seek injunctive relief in matters lying outside of the issues and parties of this suit. Kaimowita curiam) v. Orlando. Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 See (11th Cir.) (per ("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. II), amended Q!l reh'g, 131 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1138 (1998).l Plaintiff has not demonstrated that irreparable injury absent an injunction. "emphasized on many occasions, I he will suffer an The Eleventh Circuit has the asserted irreparable injury must be neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent. Siegel v. curiam) LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176-77 2000) (per {quoting Northeastern Fla. Chapter of the Ass I n of Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, Cir. (11th Cir. I II 1990)). Here, Plaintiff I s speculative at best. In sum, 896 F.2d 1283, 1285 (11th claim of irreparable inj ury is Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden. Accordingly, for all of the above-stated reasons, Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief will be denied. However, in an 1 Separate actions may be initiated in the appropriate United States District Court concerning events that happened at other institutions or involved matters outside the Amended Complaint. 4 abundance of caution, the Court will direct the Clerk to send a copy of the Motion (Doc. #15), the Declaration (Doc. #16) and this Order to the Warden of CCI for whatever action he deems appropriate in light of Plaintiff's claim that he fears further acts of harassment. It is now ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Plaintiff's May 12, 2010, Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #15) is DENIED. 2. a copy of the Motion The Clerk shall immediately send, (Doc. #15), the Declaration (Doc. #16) and this Order to the Warden of Charlotte Correctional Institution for whatever action he deems appropriate in light of Plaintiff's claim that he fears further harassment. 3. DENIED. Plaintiff's May 12, 2010, Motion to Compel (Doc. #17) is Plaintiff may seek discovery from the parties in Appointment of accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Plaintiff's May 12, 2010, Motion for Counsel (Doc. #18) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this ;I.~day May, 2010. JUDGE 5 of sa 5/12 c: Michael Steven Bryant Warden, Charlotte C.l. 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.
