United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
proceeding pro se, has recently filed an amended civil rights
complaint, ECF No. 13, and a motion requesting a preliminary
injunction or a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 12.
Plaintiff's motion has been considered first.
requests issuance of an order which would require the
Department of Corrections to “turn off all J-Pay owned
communications systems . . . . within the State of
Florida.” ECF No. 12 at 1. Plaintiff contends the order
is needed “to ensure Plaintiff remains safe, along with
Plaintiff's family . . . .” Id. However,
Plaintiff's motion does not demonstrate how the
communications systems is unsafe, or at least, endangers his
also provided no facts within the motion that demonstrate he
faces irreparable harm. Plaintiff is incarcerated at
Charlotte Correctional Institution, ECF No. 12 at 4, and none
of the named Defendants are located there. All named
Defendants are located at Taylor Correctional Institution.
ECF No. 13 at 2. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction was not directed to a specific person
named as a Defendant in this action. Plaintiff has not
identified a particular person to whom an injunction should
be directed. Furthermore, any request for relief must be
within a named Defendant's ability to provide. One warden
at one institution lacks the ability to provide relief
throughout the entire State.
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:
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury unless the
(3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever
harm the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party;
(4) granting the injunction would not be adverse to the
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
Cir. 1974)). In this case, Plaintiff provided only conclusory
assertions rather than factual allegations. His motion is
insufficient to demonstrate entitlement to relief.
Plaintiff's complaint requests injunctive relief as well
as compensatory and punitive damages. ECF No. 13 at 11-12.
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,
for all these reasons, Plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction should be denied.
amended complaint has also been reviewed. ECF No. 13.
Plaintiff alleges that in October 2018, he was threatened by
a gang member. ECF No. 13 at 6. When Plaintiff returned to
his dormitory, he was attacked by gang members. Id.
Plaintiff acknowledges, however, that he “remained
silent” about concerns for his safety, id.,
and there is no indication within the complaint that he
alerted any prison official to his concerns or a need for
protection from gang members. Plaintiff alleges that after
another altercation with a gang member in February 2019, he
was transferred to a different housing assignment “due
to gang” affiliations. Id. at 6-7.
March 2019, Plaintiff states that he attempted to mail a
letter to the Philadelphia Trumpet in which he provided
information about the “unsecure” J-Pay system.
ECF No. 13 at 7. Plaintiff alleges that his letter was
returned with an “unauthorized mail return”
receipt and his “valid unused postal stamp” was
torn off the returned envelope. Id. Plaintiff
suggests there were irregularities with his returned mail.
Id. Although he was informed by Defendant Kitzmiller
that the “mail was sent out and returned as
undeliverable, ” Plaintiff contends that Defendants
Kitzmiller and Edelen violated his constitutional rights.
Id. at 8.
2019, Plaintiff states that he filed a grievance in which he
requested the institution “remove all of J-Pay &
Securus communications” because gangs are able to use
the system for drug transactions, human traffficking, and
other nefarious uses. Id. Plaintiff's grievance
was returned with a response advising that staff at Taylor
Correctional Institution lack the ability to either authorize
or deny access to J-Pay. Id. at 8-9. Plaintiff's
appeal was similarly ineffective, and Plaintiff was informed