BROWN v. GABBY et al

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
TIFFANY BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-356-AW/MJF
WARDEN GABBY, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before this court on Plaintiff’s three motions for a
preliminary injunction, Docs. 3, 9, 15, and her motion for temporary
restraining order, Doc. 18. Because Plaintiff failed to show a substantial
likelihood 	of 	success 	on 	the 	merits, 	the 	District 	Court 	should 	deny
Plaintiff’s motions.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff—a federal inmate proceeding pro se—filed a civil rights
complaint against Defendants, who are employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
Plaintiff asserts a variety of claims, including an Eighth-Amendment
conditions 	of 	confinement 	claim, 	an 	Eighth-Amendment 	deliberate
Case 5:25-cv-00356-AW-MJF Document 23 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
indifference to a serious medical need claim, and frivolous claims asserting
violations of four criminal statutes—18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 1040, 1343, 1957.
Doc. 7 at 7.
The undersigned reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and identified two
important defects: (1) the complaint was a “shotgun pleading” and (2)
Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief. Therefore, consistent
with 	Eleventh 	Circuit 	precedent, 	the 	undersigned 	struck 	Plaintiff’s
complaint and required Plaintiff to replead the claims. Est. of Bass v.
Regions Bank, Inc., 947 F.3d 1352, 1358 (11th Cir. 2020).
D ISCUSSION
Preliminary 	injunctions 	and 	temporary 	restraining 	order 	are
extraordinary remedies. Bloedorn v. Grubs, 631 F.3d 1218, 1229 (11th Cir.
2011). The chief function of temporary restraining orders and preliminary
injunctions “is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the controversy
can be fully and fairly adjudicated.” Ne. Fla. Chapter of Ass’n of Gen.
Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283, 1284 (11th Cir. 1990);
see Granny Goose Foods Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439
(1974) (discussing TROs); All Care Nursing Serv. v. Bethesda Mem’l Hosp.,
887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 	1989). 	To establish entitlement to a
Case 5:25-cv-00356-AW-MJF Document 23 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a movant must
demonstrate:
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying
claim;
(2) a substantial likelihood of suffering irreparable injury if the
TRO/injunction is not granted;
(3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs any injury
the nonmovant might suffer from the injunction; and
(4) the injunction would not disserve the public interest.
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); In re Gateway
Radiology Consultants, P.A., 983 F.3d 1239, 1254 (11th Cir. 2020); Ingram
v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1995).
Plaintiff’s complaint violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and is a so-called “shotgun pleading.” Plaintiff asserted multiple claims
against multiple Defendants without specifying which of the defendants
are responsible for specific acts or omissions and against which of the
defendants particular claims are asserted. Plaintiff plainly failed to state a
plausible claim for relief.
When courts strike complaints that violate the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, they should not “entertain the extreme remedy of a TRO.”
Case 5:25-cv-00356-AW-MJF Document 23 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
KOVA Com. of Naples, LLC v. Sabin, No. 2:23-CV-614-JES-KCD, 2023 WL
5334550, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2023); see Freeman v. Bay Equity LLC,
2020 WL 4700767, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 13, 2020) (noting that the court
could not issue a TRO because the “Court could not even reach the merits
of Plaintiff’s underlying claims because his Complaint [was] a shotgun
pleading.”); Raja v. Englewood Cmty. Hosp., Inc., No. 12-cv-2083, 2013 WL
12157136, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2013) (dismissing amended complaint as
shotgun pleading, granting leave to amend, and denying preliminary
injunction as moot); accord Michael Westbrook, v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp.,
No. CV-25-01061-PHX-DWL, 2025 WL 1677892, at *4 (D. Ariz. June 13,
2025) (“The incomprehensible nature of the complaint, alone, undermines
any likelihood of success on the merits.”).
Plaintiff obviously has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of
success 	on 	the 	merits. 	When 	a 	movant 	“is unable 	to 	demonstrate 	a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits,” courts “do not need to
address the remaining preliminary injunction requirements.” See Keister
v. Bell, 879 F.3d 1282, 1288 (11th Cir. 2018). For this reason alone, the
District Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. See Valdes
v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty., 806 F. App’x 722, 724 (11th Cir. 2020).
Case 5:25-cv-00356-AW-MJF Document 23 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY Plaintiff’s motions for
preliminary injunction, Docs. 3, 9, 15, and her motion for a temporary
restraining order, Doc. 18, without prejudice.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 22nd day of January 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge 	to 	address 	preliminary 	matters 	and 	to 	make
recommendations 	regarding 	dispositive 	matters. 	See
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed findings and
recommendations must be filed within fourteen days of
the 	date 	of 	the 	report 	and 	recommendation. 	Any
different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the court’s internal use only and does not
control. A party who fails to object to the magistrate
judge’s 	findings 	or 	recommendations 	contained 	in 	a
report 	and 	recommendation 	waives 	the 	right 	to
challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir.
Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:25-cv-00356-AW-MJF Document 23 Filed 01/22/26 Page 5 of 5