say that the right to such injunctive relief is clear. Nor would it be possible to tailor narrowly the injunction to remedy the harm shown when the identity of those affected is undetermined. III. Conclusion. For the aforesaid reasons, I deny the United States’ Motion for an Injunctive Order without prejudice to the right to file a renewed request for injunctive relief at the conclusion of the remedial phase of the case. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT the United States’ Motion for an Injunctive Order is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the right to file a renewed request for injunctive relief at the conclusion of the remedial phase of Civil Action No. 96-K-370. 1 . As of this date, the issue is not fully briefed. 2 . See Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144, 1157-58 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); United States v. United States Steel Corp.,
holding that there is no individual liability under title vii holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original holding that injunctive or declaratory relief results if liability is found following stage i of a bifurcated title vii class action suit holding that a prisoners transfer mooted claims for declaratory and injunctive relief holding that the eleventh amendment precludes an award of injunctive or declaratory relief that is not prospective in nature