Opinion
C.A. No. 2:06-0052-MBS-RSC.
April 18, 2006
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a report with recommendations as provided for in Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b), and the local rules of this court.
On February 24, 2006, the plaintiff herein, Gabriel Randolph, moved for a Temporary Restraining Order under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to obtain adequate access to the law library and thus the courts and to prohibit alleged assaults by known, but unnamed, officials of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The defendants opposed the motion on March 20, 2006.
Rule 65 provides that no preliminary injunction shall be issued unless it clearly appears that irreparable injury will result and that there is good cause for not giving notice.
Evidence of irreparable injury is not apparent here. Accordingly it is recommended that the motion be denied.
The requirements for granting preliminary relief are well known. In Direx Isreal, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Medical Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 811 (4th Cir. 1991), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals outlined the precise analytical framework which courts must employ in determining whether to grant preliminary relief. First, the party requesting preliminary relief must make a "clear showing" that he will suffer irreparable harm if the court denies his request. Id. at 812-13. Second, if the party establishes irreparable harm, "the next step then for the court to take is to balance the likelihood of irreparable harm to the plaintiff from the failure to grant interim relief against the likelihood of harm to the defendant from the grant of such relief." Direx Israel, 952 F.2d at 812. Third, if the balance tips decidedly in favor of the party requesting preliminary relief, "a preliminary injunction will be granted if the plaintiff has raised questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful, as to make them fair ground for litigation and thus more deliberate investigation." Id. at 813. However, "if the balance does not tip decidedly there must be a strong probability of success on the merits." Id. Fourth, the court must evaluate whether the public interest favors granting preliminary relief. The award of preliminary relief is entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court. Id. at 811. Multi-Channel TV Cable Company v. Charlottesville Quality Cable Operating Company, 22 F.3d 546, 551 (4th Cir. 1994).
Here the plaintiff has failed to meet even one of the requirements for a temporary restraining order. There is no showing of irreparable harm, and thus the remaining balancing tests become irrelevant. He fails to name the individuals against whom he seeks the order, and does not make a clear showing that any irreparable harm would occur if the injunction were denied.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the motion be denied.