Opinion
Case No. 5:19-cv-00236-MTT-CHW
07-08-2020
YUSUFU KUUMBA BEY, Plaintiff, v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. §1983
Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
This action involves a religious exercise challenge to a prison grooming policy pursuant to which Plaintiff Yusufu Bey alleges that his hair was forcibly cut. Plaintiff also brings claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments relating to his confinement within administrative segregation or "Tier II" quarters. (Docs. 13, 18).
Before the Court at present are two motions. One is a motion by the Defendants to reopen the discovery period and correspondingly to extend the deadline for filing dispositive motions. (Doc. 54). The Defendants inform the Court that all parties have continued to work on written discovery beyond the formal deadline for the discovery period, and that additional time is needed to take Plaintiff's deposition, the scheduling of which is complicated by COVID-19 measures. For good cause shown, and because Plaintiff has not responded to the motion, the motion is GRANTED. The renewed discovery period will expire on October 5 , 2020 . Dispositive motions are due by December 4 , 2020 .
Also before the Court is a filing from Plaintiff which seeks a show-cause hearing on the issue of "why a preliminary injunction should not issue." (Doc. 56). To the extent this filing should be construed as a motion for preliminary injunction, it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be DENIED for two reasons. First Plaintiff's motion contains no acknowledgement or assessment of the legal factors relevant to a preliminary injunction analysis. Those factors are: "(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." Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, B.V., v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 320 F.3d 1205, 1210 (11th Cir. 2003). To obtain relief, the "movant must clearly carry the burden of persuasion" as to each of these four legal factors. Id.
Second, although Plaintiff's motion predominantly relates to his religious claims, Plaintiff has supported the motion by submitting over 100 pages of institutional records, many of which are seemingly not relevant to any of Plaintiff's claims. See, e.g., (Doc. 55-2, pp. 79-114) ("program check list"). The remaining records appear most relevant not to Plaintiff's religious exercise claims, but rather to his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. See, e.g., (Doc. 55-2, p. 12) ("Reassign to Tier I for 30 day monitoring and then general population").
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). Instead, preliminary injunctive relief may only be granted when a movant meets his burden as to all four of the relevant legal factors. This burden "can seldom be satisfied by a mere document dump." Cf. United States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807, 877-78 (11th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, should Plaintiff seek to renew his motion, Plaintiff is ADVISED to support his motion with specific citations to relevant evidence.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. The District Judge will make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
The parties are further notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, "[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice."
SO RECOMMENDED, this 8th day of July, 2020.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge