CLAY v. COOPER et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
BYRON DONNELLE CLAY, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No. 3:25-cv-124-TES-AGH
:
Nurse MS. COOPER, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff Byron Clay, an inmate in the Walton County Jail in Monroe,
Georgia, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	ECF No. 1. 	Plaintiff filed two
motions requesting a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. ECF
Nos. 9, 12. 	A preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (“TRO”) 1 is a
drastic remedy used primarily to preserve the status quo rather than to grant most
or all of the substantive relief sought in the complaint. See, e.g., Cate v. Oldham, 707
F.2d 1176, 1185 (11th Cir. 1983); Fernandez-Roque v. Smith, 671 F.2d 426, 429 (11th
Cir. 1982); Robinson v. Att’y Gen., 957 F.3d 1171, 1178-79 (11th Cir. 2020) (“The chief
function of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the merits of
the controversy can be fully and fairly adjudicated.”). “Mandatory preliminary relief,”
as Plaintiff seeks here, “goes well beyond simply maintaining the status quo, is
particularly disfavored, and should not be issued unless the facts and law clearly
1 The standard for obtaining a TRO is the same as the standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction.
See Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (11th Cir. 2001); Windsor v.
United States, 379 F. App’x 912, 916-17 (11th Cir. 2010).
Case 3:25-cv-00124-TES-AGH Document 17 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 3

2
favor the moving party.” 	Powers v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 691 F. App’x 581, 583
(11th Cir. 2017). Further, “[b]ecause a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and
drastic remedy, its grant is the exception rather than the rule[.]” 	United States v.
Lambert, 695 F.2d 536, 539 (11th Cir 1983) (quotation omitted).
Factors a movant must show to be entitled to a TRO include: “(1) a substantial
likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2) the TRO is necessary to prevent
irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the harm the TRO would
inflict on the non-movant; and (4) the TRO would serve the public interest.” Ingram
v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1995). 	The failure to establish any one element
will warrant denial of the request for preliminary injunctive relief and obviate the
need to consider the remaining requirements. See Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269,
1292 (11th Cir. 2001); ACLU of Fla., Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Bd., 557 F.3d 1177,
1198 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[F]ailure to show any of the four factors is fatal.”).
At this juncture, the facts have not been sufficiently developed to conclude that
there is a substantial likelihood that Plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits.
Defendants have not been served so they have had no meaningful notice to respond
to Plaintiff’s allegations. Defendants should be afforded an opportunity to respond to
Plaintiff’s allegations prior to the Court issuing any preliminary injunction or TRO.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. Since Plaintiff fails to show a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits, he fails to meet the prerequisites necessary for preliminary injunctive
relief. See GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 788 F.3d 1318, 1329
(11th Cir. 2015) (citing ACLU of Fla., Inc., 557 F.3d at 1198) (declining to consider
Case 3:25-cv-00124-TES-AGH Document 17 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 3

3
remaining preliminary injunction factors because the plaintiff failed to show a
likelihood 	of 	success 	on 	the 	merits). 	Because 	Plaintiff 	has 	not 	met 	all 	the
prerequisites 	for 	preliminary 	injunctive 	relief, 	it 	is 	RECOMMENDED 	that
Plaintiff’s requests for a preliminary injunction and/or a temporary restraining order
(ECF Nos. 9, 12) be DENIED at this time.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written
objections to these recommendations with the Honorable Tilman E. Self, III., United
States District Judge, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a
copy of this Recommendation. The parties may seek an extension of time in which to
file written objections, provided a request for an extension is filed prior to the deadline
for filing written objections. Objections to the Recommendation are limited in length
to twenty (20) pages. A party seeking permission to exceed these limitations shall do
so by filing a written motion no later than five (5) days in advance of the deadline for
filing objections and by specifying the number of pages requested. 	Failure to object
in accordance with the provisions of § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on
appeal the district judge’s order based on factual and legal conclusions to which no
objection was timely made. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
SO RECOMMENDED, this 11th day of February, 2026.
s/ Amelia G. Helmick
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00124-TES-AGH Document 17 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 3