Opinion
7:19-CV-194 (WLS)
08-16-2021
RECOMMENDATION
THOMAS Q. LANGSTAFF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending are Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief and motions for default judgment. (Docs. 55, 56, 57). Plaintiff, a citizen and resident of India who was previously an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detainee in the Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla, Georgia, filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Doc. 1). Plaintiff's deliberate indifference to a serious medical need claim, pertaining to dental care, was allowed to proceed against certain Defendants, and all other claims were dismissed. (Docs. 13, 29, 58). Plaintiff's subsequent motions to amend his complaint were denied. (Docs. 23, 25, 41, 44, 50, 58).
Motion for Injunctive Relief
Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking injunctive or declaratory relief, apparently seeking injunctive relief regarding homeless people trespassing on his Atlanta property. Plaintiff apparently seeks this injunctive relief against a non-party. (Doc. 55).
The Court is not authorized to issue injunctive relief against any non-party, as it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this non-party. In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL 878 v. Abbott Laboratories, 72 F.3d 842, 843 (11 Cir. 1995); see also Bowman v. Crosby, 2005 WL 1278173, *1 (N.D.Fla. 2005) (“the persons from whom injunctive relief is sought must be parties to the underlying action”).
Cir. 1990). Injunctive relief will not issue unless the conduct at issue is imminent and no other relief or compensation is available. Cunningham v. Adams, 808 F.2d 815, 821 (11
Furthermore, in order to obtain injunctive or declaratory relief, the Plaintiff must prove that: (1) there is a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the merits; (2) he will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest. Zardui-Quintana v. Richard, 768 F.2d 1213, 1216 (11Cir. 1985); Snook v. Trust Co. of Georgia Bank of Savannah, N.A., 909 F.2d 480, 483 (11
Cir. 1987).
A review of the Plaintiff's motion reveals an inadequate basis for the issuance of an injunctive order. Plaintiff has not established that he is entitled to injunctive relief in regard to his requests, i.e., that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or resulting irreparable harm, or that no other relief is available to address his alleged injuries.
Inasmuch as the Court lacks jurisdiction to direct the injunctive relief which Plaintiff seeks against a non-party, and the Plaintiff has failed to otherwise establish an adequate basis for the issuance of injunctive relief, it is the recommendation of the undersigned that Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief be DENIED. (Doc. 55).
Motions for Default Judgment
In motions filed on November 23, 2020, Plaintiff seeks the entry of default judgment against Defendants. (Docs. 56, 57). Pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party's default”. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55 (a).
Although Defendants have not yet filed an answer or responsive pleading, it is not clear that they have been properly served. (Doc. 73). As the Court has extended the time for service and ordered the United States served pursuant to Rule 4(i), there is no basis for the entry of default against Defendants at this time, and it is the recommendation of the undersigned that Plaintiff's Motions for Default Judgment be DENIED. (Docs. 56 & 57). Objections
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to the recommendations herein, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. The District Judge shall make a de novo determination as to those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made; all other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed by the District Judge for clear error.
The parties are hereby 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