WOODS

v.

LAKE BUTLER RMC

Plaintiff, Dannis C. Woods, an inmate of the Florida penal system, initiated this action by filing a pro se motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (Doc. 1; Motion). In the motion, Plaintiff, who admittedly is “mentally incompetent,” asserts he incurred false disciplinary charges on October 21, 2020, for attempting to establish a personal, sexual relationship with a female staff member. See Motion at 3, 11, 18.1 He claims that officers are “using [their] own families, boyfriends, [and] husbands” to harm him in prison and on the “city streets” around the institution—the Reception and Medical Center (RMC).² Id. at 3. It is unclear what relief

Injunctive relief, whether in the form of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, “is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy,’ and [the movant] bears the ‘burden of persuasion.’” Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F. 3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Siegel v. LePore, 234 F. 3d 1163,

1176 (11th Cir. 2000)). To demonstrate entitlement to injunctive relief, a movant must show the following four prerequisites: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable injury will be suffered if the relief is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs the harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) that entry of the relief would serve the public interest.

Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F. 3d 1223, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2005). With respect to the second prerequisite, “the asserted irreparable injury ‘must be neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent.’” Siegel, 234 F. 3d at 1176. Plaintiff fails to carry his burden demonstrating injunctive relief is warranted. Importantly, Plaintiff has not properly initiated a civil rights action (Doc. 2) (notifying the institution of an inmate’s claim of imminent physical harm). by filing a complaint and paying the filing fee.³ Thus, his motion is facially deficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local

Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. See also M.D. Fla. R. 4.05(b)(1)-(4), 4.06 (requiring a motion for injunctive relief be supported by a verified complaint or affidavits showing the movant is threatened with irreparable injury; describe precisely the conduct sought to be enjoined; and include a supporting memorandum of law). Additionally, Plaintiff asserts no facts suggesting he faces an imminent threat of harm. Rather, the alleged threats of harm are vague, speculative, and somewhat fantastical. See Siegel, 234 F. 3d at 1176. Even if Plaintiff could demonstrate irreparable injury, he fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his underlying claim, principally because his underlying claim, if any, is unclear. To the extent Plaintiff was adjudicated guilty of the disciplinary charges levied against him, he may not pursue a retaliation claim against the officials who filed the charges. See O’Bryant v. Finch, 637 F. 3d 1207, 1215 (11th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n inmate cannot state a claim of retaliation for a disciplinary charge involving a prison rule infraction when the inmate

2. This case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 4th day of December 2020.

Bhan) Booms

BRIAN J. DAVIS

United States District Judge Jax-6 Dannis C. Woods