WILLIAMS v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 4:24-cv-485-RH-MJF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. _______________________________/

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY RELIEF

The plaintiff is a state prisoner who complains of multiple alleged violations of federal and state law. He has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and two motions for an injunction. The mandamus petition is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 11, and the objections, ECF No. 13. I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections. I have reviewed the motions for an injunction de novo as an original matter before entry of a report and recommendation.

In effect, the petition and motions all seek a preliminary injunction. As a prerequisite to a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction does not issue, that the threatened injury outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause a defendant, and that the injunction will not be adverse to the public interest. See, e.g., Charles H. Wesley Educ. Found., Inc. v. Cox, 408 F.3d 1349, 1354 (11th Cir. 2005); Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

The plaintiff has tendered no evidence and thus has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. He is not entitled to a preliminary injunction—or to a writ of mandamus of order in any form constituting, in effect, a preliminary injunction.

IT IS ORDERED: 1. The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as the court’s further opinion.

2. The petition for a writ of mandamus, ECF No. 9, and the motions for an injunction, ECF Nos. 6 and 14, are denied.

3. The case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED on February 25, 2025. s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge