IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ROBERT JAMAR CASEY,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07-CV-67-ID
J. C. GILES, et al.,
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which Robert Jamar Casey ["Casey"], a state
inmate, challenges a disciplinary lodged against him at the Ventress Correctional Facility
for indecent exposure/exhibitionism. In his complaint, Casey seeks issuance of a
preliminary injunction requiring expungement of the disciplinary, installation of "a partition
in the bathroom at the urinals ... so that the female officers cannot have a direct view of the
male genitals ...," and the presentation of physical evidence to support charges of indecent
exposure/exhibitionism. Joint Complaint - Court Doc. No. 2-2 at 11. The court therefore
construes this document to contain a motion for preliminary injunction under Rule 65,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction “is within the sound
Case 2:07-cv-00067-ID-SRW Document 6 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 1 of 5
Casey v. Giles et al (INMATE 1)
discretion of the district court . . ..” Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002).
The four prerequisites which Spurling must demonstrate to warrant issuance of a
preliminary injunction 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 Spurling
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 per