United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
proceeding pro se and with in forma pauperis status, filed a
civil rights complaint, ECF No. 1, asserting several claims.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction, ECF No. 8,
supported by a memorandum of law, ECF No. 9, and a
declaration, ECF No. 10. Plaintiff's motion seeks an
injunction to prevent the Defendants from transferring him
“under false pretenses out of retaliation” for
having filed this lawsuit. ECF No. 8 at 1-2. Plaintiff also
seeks preliminary injunctive relief pertaining to the claims
raised in this case. Id. at 2-3.
complaint challenges the Department of Corrections'
decision to terminate a contract with three business entities
which will eliminate the current Digital Music Player Program
in Florida prisons. ECF No. 1 at 6-7. Plaintiff contends that
this action will result in the loss of his property and the
significant investment made in the purchase of a digital
music player and music. Id. at 7. He alleges that he
was allowed to purchase music for an unlimited amount of time
that could be stored and accessed at will, and that was to be
“transferable to a new device” should his
purchased player become defective. Id. at 6.
Plaintiff contends that the companies have now installed
“a mortality timer” on his music player which
will render it non-operational in late January 2019.
Id. at 7. He claims that Defendants have engaged in
fraud and breached the contract provided at the time of
purchase. Id. at 14. He further asserts that
Defendants have violated his due process rights, id.
at 15, and his Equal Protection rights because inmates who do
not possess the MP3/MP4 players are able to purchase a
tablet. Id. at 8-9, 15. As relief in this action,
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, as well as compensatory,
nominal, and punitive damages. ECF No. 1.
or denying a preliminary injunction is a decision within the
discretion of the district court. Carillon Importers,
Ltd. v. Frank Pesce Intern. Group Ltd., 112
F.3d 1125, 1126 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing United States v.
Lambert, 695 F.2d 536, 539 (11th Cir. 1983)).
Preliminary injunctive relief may be granted only if the
moving party establishes:
substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
substantial threat of irreparable injury unless the
threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever harm the
proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and
granting the injunction would not be adverse to the public
interest. Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, 664 F.3d 865,
868 (11th Cir. 2011); Carillon Importers, Ltd., 112
F.3d at 1126; United States v. Jefferson Cnty., 720
F.2d 1511, 1519 (11th Cir. 1983). To be entitled to a
preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate all four
prerequisites. Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176
(11th Cir. 2000); Jefferson Cnty., 720 F.2d at 1519
(citing Canal Auth. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567 (5th
case, Plaintiff has not demonstrated irreparable injury.
“Irreparable injury ‘is the sine qua non
of injunctive relief.'” Siegel, 234 F.3d
at 1176 (quoted in Jernard v. Commissioner, Ga. Dep't
of Corrs., 457 Fed.Appx. 837, 839 (11th Cir. 2012)).
Here, Plaintiff has specifically requested compensatory
damages. The availability of monetary damages means that
Plaintiff has not shown irreparable injury. Jefferson
Cnty., 720 F.2d at 1520 (finding “[t]he
possibility that adequate compensatory or other corrective
relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary
course of litigation, weighs heavily against a claim of
irreparable harm.”). Thus, Plaintiff's motion
should be denied.
respectfully RECOMMENDED that
Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction, ECF No. 10, be
DENIED and this case be
REMANDED to the undersigned for further
TO THE PARTIES
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file
specific written objections to these proposed findings and
recommendations. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the
objections shall be served upon all other parties. A party
may respond to another party's objections within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy thereof.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may
appear on the electronic docket is for the Court's
internal use only and does not control. If a party fails
to object to the Magistrate Judge's findings or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained
in this Report and ...