IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
RONNIE McCLAIN, #133958,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-943-F
BOB RILEY, et al.,
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Ronnie McClain [“McClain”], a state inmate,
challenges the conditions of confinement to which he is subjected at the Elmore
Correctional Facility and asserts claims with respect to the general conditions of
correctional facilities operated by the Alabama Department of Corrections. McClain filed
a motion for issuance of permanent injunction, see Court Doc. No. 2, in which he seeks
issuance of an emergency injunction under Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
court therefore construes this document to contain a motion for preliminary injunction.
Upon consideration of the motion for preliminary injunction, the court concludes that this
motion is due to be denied.
The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction “is within the sound
Case 2:05-cv-00943-WKW-WC Document 11 Filed 10/05/2005 Page 1 of 4
McClain v. Riley et al (INMATE1)
discretion of the district court . . .” Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002).
The four prerequisites which McClain must demonstrate are: (1) a substantial likelihood
of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury without the injunction;
(3) that the harm to McClain outweighs the harm to the non-moving parties; and (4) that
an injunction would be in the interest of the public. Palmer, 287 F.3d at 1329; Cate v.
Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176 (11th Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and Yacht Corp.,
697 F.2d 1352 (11th Cir. 1983).
“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted
unless the movant clearly established the burden of persuasion” as