United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
J. DAVIS, United States District Judge
Michael Lenard Mack, an inmate of the Florida penal system,
initiated this action on February 9, 2018, by filing a
pro se Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 1;
Complaint).Plaintiff alleges denial of medical care,
resulting in deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. See Complaint at 4. Specifically, Plaintiff
claims a “lack of proper medical treatment [for] his
serious medical condition of (7) seven herniated disc[s],
bulging discs, and degenerative disc
disease.” Id. Before the Court today is
Plaintiff's Motion Requesting a Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 4; Motion). In his
Motion, Plaintiff states that he is “suffering
irreparable harm in the form of continued physical and mental
pain and suffering and an increasing risk of further injuring
[his] back and neck.” Motion at 1. As relief, he seeks
“an examination by a qualified [medical] specialist,
” and compliance with a treatment plan provided by the
specialist. Id. at 2.
initial matter, Plaintiff's Motion is due to be denied
for his failure to comply with the strictures of Fed.R.Civ.P.
65(b) and Local Rule 4.05(b). Specifically, he has failed to
set forth facts on which the Court can make a reasoned
determination as to the amount of security which must be
posted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c). Additionally, the
Motion does not contain a sufficient memorandum of law in
support of the relief he seeks. See Local Rules
3.01(a), 4.05(b)(3)(iv). The Court notes that Plaintiff does
reference, in his Motion, a supporting memorandum of law.
See Motion at 2. The memorandum of law to which
Plaintiff refers, however, is entitled Memorandum of Law in
Support of Plaintiff's 1983 Civil Rights Complaint.
See Doc. 3. More importantly, Plaintiff's
memorandum of law does not set forth reasons that would
support the extraordinary relief Plaintiff seeks in his
Motion, nor does it comply with Local Rule 4.05(b)(4).
Rather, the memorandum of law provides citations to
authorities in apparent support of his deliberate
indifference claim. See Doc. 3.
has also failed to demonstrate he is entitled to the relief
A [temporary restraining order (TRO)] or preliminary
injunction is appropriate where the movant demonstrates that:
(a) there is a substantial likelihood of success on the
(b) the . . . injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable
(c) the threatened injury outweighs the harm that the . . .
injunction would cause to the non-movant; and
(d) the . . . injunction would not be a[d]verse to the public
Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275
F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). Injunctive
relief “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that
should not be granted unless the movant clearly carries [his]
burden of persuasion.” GeorgiaCarry.Org,
Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 788 F.3d 1318,
1322 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotations and citation omitted);
see McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d
1301, 1306 (11th Cir.1998). Plaintiff has not adequately
addressed, let alone met his burden of persuasion as to,
these four prerequisites for injunctive relief. Notably, this
Court has previously denied the Plaintiff similar relief in
the other matter he has pending. In that matter, Plaintiff
filed a motion requesting medical examination by an outside
specialist. The Court denied Plaintiffs motion. See Mack
v. Corizon, etc., case number 3:15-cv-838-J-32JBT, Order
(Doc. 37), filed October 2, 2017.
above-stated reasons, it is
Motion Requesting a Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 4) is DENIED.