MALDONADO

v.

BAKER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

Plaintiffs are six inmates who were detained together at the Baker County Detention Center (BCDC). Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit in the Circuit Court, Eighth Judicial Circuit, in and for Baker County, Florida, against the following Defendants: Baker County Sheriff’s Office, BCCMC,¹ Baker County Detention Center, Evelyn Blue, Jessica Adrien Looby, Scotty Rhoden, Sam Kitching, Ronald Goodman, and Wyatt Martin Rhoden (Doc. 1-2; Doc. 1-3 at 3). Defendant Scotty Rhoden filed a notice of removal, requesting that this Court accept jurisdiction because the complaint alleges violations of the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. See Notice of Removal (Doc. 1).

Langhorne and Weaver).⁵ Id. at 17-18, 26, 29-30, 32-33, 33 n.39, 35-36. As relief, Plaintiffs seek nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages against each Defendant, litigation costs, appointment of counsel, and an order for a psychological evaluation of Defendants Rhoden⁶ and Goodman. Id. at 48-49. At the end of their complaint, Plaintiffs move for entry of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (Doc. 4; TRO Motion). Plaintiffs have filed in this Court a motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 6) and a memorandum in opposition to the notice of removal (Doc. 7; Memo.). Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss

A. TRO Motion

Plaintiffs assert they “are in imminent danger of harm and or [sic] physical attack” based on the incidents relayed in the complaint and other past acts of violence against unnamed inmates.

See TRO Motion at 1. In response, Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ motion does not comply with the Court’s Local Rules or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. TRO Resp. at 1. They further argue Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate irreparable injury. Id. at 2. 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. Plaintiffs fail to carry their burden demonstrating injunctive relief is warranted. They merely complain of past incidents and offer no facts suggesting they face an imminent threat of harm in the future. Plaintiffs also fail to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims because they offer only their own, self-serving allegations. Moreover, they do not specify the nature of the injunctive relief they seek. Plaintiffs simply request “that a TRO and preliminary injunction be issued.” TRO Motion at 2. Finally, the Plaintiff who appears to have signed and filed the complaint, Mr. Maldonado, is no longer housed at BCDC.⁷ Thus, Plaintiff Maldonado’s request for injunctive relief is moot. See Spears v. Thigpen, 846 F. 2d 1327, 1328 (11th Cir. 1988) (holding a prisoner’s claims for injunctive relief based

B. Notice of Removal & Opposition

One of eight served Defendants filed a notice of removal. See Notice of Removal (Doc. 1). The remaining Defendants, while represented by the same counsel, did not join the notice, nor have they filed separate notices indicating their consent to removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(2)(A) (“When a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.”). Plaintiffs oppose the notice of removal. See Memo. at 1-2. Plaintiffs, however, do not explicitly move to remand the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Given Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, the Court must liberally construe their filings. As such, the Court will afford Plaintiffs an opportunity to timely file a motion to remand the case in compliance with § 1447(c), which provides, “A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a).”

BRIAN J. DAVIS

United States District Judge

Jax-6 Cc: Pro se Plaintiffs Counsel of Record