Opinion
Civil Action 00-0102-CB-C
June 26, 2000
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and is now before the undersigned on Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction ("motion") (Doc. 4). For the reasons stated below, it is recommended that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 4) be denied.
The Court is treating Plaintiff's motion as a motion for a temporary restraining order because Defendants have not been served with the motion.
I. Nature of Proceedings.
A. Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 4).
In the motion, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendant Jones to repair the air-conditioning and heating unit in the Islamic masjid or to provide other means to keep the masjid cool in the summer and warm in the winter. Plaintiff asserts that he and other Islamic inmates at Holman Correctional Facility will suffer irreparable injury if the unit remains non-functioning during the winter as it did during the heat wave of the summer of 1999 because this is cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff also maintains that it is a violation of the equal protection clause that the unit remain non-functioning because the Christian chapel has temperate conditions at all times.
B. Complaint's Allegations (Doc. 1).
Plaintiff alleges that the air conditioning and heating unit broke in the summer of 1999 when the outside temperatures were above 100 degrees. Plaintiff complains that the temperatures in the masjid exceeded the outside temperatures and that Islamic services inside the masjid were canceled due to the unbearable temperatures in the masjid. Plaintiff contends that even though he has written the warden about the situation, he has received no response and the unit has not been fixed. Plaintiff maintains that during the following winter, the temperatures inside the masjid were so cold that Islamic inmates caught colds and the flu and, as a result, participation in the class declined. Plaintiff asserts that maintenance personnel have identified the piece or parts needed to repair the unit, but the Alabama Department of Corrections ("ADOC") has refused to purchase the needed parts. Plaintiff contends that ADOC has violated the Islamic community's Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting them to cruel and unusual punishment, and he seeks to have the unit repaired and to have ADOC stop its discriminatory practices.
II. Discussion.
In order for Plaintiff to prevail on a request for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, he must show:
(1) a substantial likelihood that he will ultimately prevail on the merits; (2) that he will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues; (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to public interest. "The preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant `clearly carries the burden of persuasion' as to the four prerequisites."Zardui-Quintana v. Richard, 768 F.2d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir. 1985). It is mandatory that the movant convince the court that all four factors are satisfied. United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1519 (11th Cir. 1983) (finding that a preliminary injunction was properly denied where movant failed to established one factor because movant bore burden of persuasion on each of the four factors); United States v. Lambert, 695 F.2d 536, 540 (11th Cir. 1983) (same).
Injunctive relief will not issue unless the complained of conduct is imminent and no other relief or compensation is available. Cunningham v. Adams, 808 F.2d 815, 821 (11th Cir. 1987); Sullivan v. Division of Elections, 718 F.2d 363, 365 (11th Cir. 1983). Further, a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is a drastic remedy used primarily for maintaining the status quo of the parties. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 1834, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981); Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176, 1185 (11th Cir. 1983);Fernandez-Roque v. Smith, 671 F.2d 426, 429 (11th Cir. 1982).
In the present action, Plaintiff has taken the position that the uncomfortable temperatures violate the Eighth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. Considering that this is the basis of Plaintiff's claim, it is incumbent on Plaintiff to persuade the Court that he will suffer a physical injury that is irreparable and imminent unless injunctive relief issues at this time. Plaintiff, however, has not specifically identified an injury that he will sustain if the unit is not repaired. Nor has Plaintiff provided the information necessary to establish that the injury is irreparable and immediate. Rather, it appears to the Court that a physical injury is avoidable, and has been avoided by not gathering in the masjid during certain times. Moreover, Plaintiff's allegations are not of the nature to provide the basis for the Court's intervention with extraordinary and drastic relief in the form of an injunction at this time. Therefore, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed to bear his burden of persuasion on the element that he will suffer irreparable injury unless injunctive relief issues.
III. Conclusion.
Because Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden on the element that he will sustain an irreparable injury unless injunctive relief issues, the other elements for injunctive relief will not be discussed. See Jefferson County, 702 F.2d at 1519 (finding that a preliminary injunction was properly denied where movant failed to meet the burden of persuasion on one factor because movant bore burden of persuasion on each of the four factors). Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 4) be denied.