Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION ANDREW BROWN,
Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 1:13-cv-145-MP-GRJ MAYO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Defendant.
__________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 38, and his filing entitled “Safety of Plaintiff,” Doc. 41. In his motion, Plaintiff requests that he be transferred to another prison, preferably in the Orlando area, or to a prison south of the central Florida area. He also requests that the Court direct mail room staff at Mayo C.I, Plaintiff’s present institution, to stop “violating Plaintiff Constitutional RIGHTS.” In his document entitled “Safety of Plaintiff,” Plaintiff states that he is in fear for his life, safety, and legal cases, and requests that he be transferred as requested in his motion, Doc. 38.
By way of background, the undersigned has directed Plaintiff to amend his complaint to reflect only clearly related claims that stem from the same basic event or occurrence. The amended complaint is due on or before July 7, 2014.
Temporary Restraining Order
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate entitlement to a temporary restraining order.
Pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may issue a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse party only if:
[S]pecific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
Plaintiff has made no attempt to certify any efforts he has made to give notice to Defendants or why notice should not be required. Accordingly, his motion does not comply with Rule 65(b)(1)(B) and is procedurally defective on its face.
Plaintiff also fails to identify the parties over whom he requests the Court exercise jurisdiction. This is especially problematic where Plaintiff has been directed to amend his complaint because his original complaint has misjoined multiple defendants and conglomerated unrelated claims. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s has failed to show that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before Defendants can be heard. Preliminary Injunction
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) , United States v. Lambert, 695 F.2d 536, 539 (11th Cir. 1983) . Guiding this discretion is the required finding that plaintiff establish:
(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) . *3 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, Canal Auth. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1974) .
Plaintiff makes generalized claims that prison officials have retaliated against him, disregarded his rights, and mishandled his mail. 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 as well as a number of letters and other inquiries to the Court. 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 are not sufficient to invoke the drastic remedy of a preliminary injunction.
Request for Transfer
Further, to the extent that Plaintiff is requesting that the Court transfer him, the Court has already explained in its previous order, Doc. 24, that the Court may not do so. As the Court previously explained, prisoners do not have a constitutional right to remain in or be transferred to a correctional institution of their own choosing. This extends to their housing within an institution. See Meachum v. Fano , 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976); Clark v. Browers , 2005 WL 1926088, at *3 (E.D.Mo. Aug. 10, 2005) (inmate's motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction that requested transfer to another correctional facility, denied because “plaintiff does not have a right to be held in the institution of his choosing”); see also Beltran v. Smith , 458 U.S. 1303, 1305 (1982) (in case where federal inmate objected to prison transfer because he felt safer *4 and more secure at current institution, court denied inmate's application for emergency stay while appeal from denial of motion for preliminary injunctive relief was pending in court of appeals because “[t]he Attorney General has authority to transfer [the inmate] from one facility to another in his discretion.”)
Plaintiff expresses a subjective belief that his safety is in danger, but his allegations present no basis for seeking court intervention regarding his place of confinement, a matter within the purview of the Department of Corrections.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 38, and his filing entitled “Safety of Plaintiff,” Doc. 41 be DENIED. th
IN CHAMBERS, at Gainesville, Florida this 4 day of June 2014. s/ Gary R. Jones GARY R. JONES United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.