Gross v. Clements et al

Filing 17

ORDER Denying Motion for Injunctive Relief. ORDERED that the "Petition for Temporary Injunction for Medical/Dental Services" 15 is denied, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 2/8/12.(lyg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02656-BNB
BRIAN M. GROSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM CLEMENTS,
JOHN DAVIS,
ELLEN BLACKMORE,
MARY CARTER,
THOMAS FISHER,
MARY BETH KALYMER,
KERRY BARONI,
MARCIA MORTIN (aka DENISE MORTIN),
ARISTEDES ZAVARES,
STEVE M. VICALVI,
P. LASTRELL,
JOHN DOE,
JANE DOE, and
ANTHONY DeCESARO,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

This matter is before the Court on the “Petition for Temporary Injunction for
Medical/Dental Services” (Doc. # 15) that Plaintiff, Brian M. Gross, filed pro se on
January 26, 2011. In the motion, Mr. Gross requests that the “court grant him an
injunction placing his Medical and Dental care needs to be met by an independent third
parties [sic].” He argues that the named Defendants “have shown reckless disregard for
the welfare and safety of the Plaintiff, by denying the medical and dental needs that he
requires.” Mr. Gross does not provide any supporting factual allegations with regard to

his medical and dental needs; instead, the motion is bare and conclusory.
The Court must construe the motion liberally because Mr. Gross is not
represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be an
advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated
below, the motion will be denied.
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show a substantial likelihood of
prevailing on the merits, that he will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues,
that the threatened injury outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may
cause the opposing party, and that the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the
public interest. See Lundgrin v. Claytor, 619 F.2d 61, 63 (10th Cir. 1980). Similarly, a
party seeking a temporary restraining order must demonstrate clearly, with specific
factual allegations, that immediate and irreparable injury will result unless a temporary
restraining order is issued. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and “the primary goal of a
preliminary injunction is to preserve the pre-trial status quo.” RoDa Drilling Co. v.
Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203, 1208 (10th Cir. 2009). Therefore, “courts should be especially
cautious when granting an injunction that requires the nonmoving party to take
affirmative action - a mandatory preliminary injunction - before a trial on the merits
occurs.” Id. Because Mr. Gross is seeking a mandatory preliminary injunction that
seeks to alter the status quo, he must make a heightened showing of the four factors
listed above. See id. at 1209.

2

Mr. Gross does not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the
merits, that he will suffer irreparable injury if no preliminary injunction is issued, that his
threatened injuries outweigh whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the
opposing party, or that a preliminary injunction would not be adverse to the public
interest. Therefore, the motion for injunctive relief will be denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the “Petition for Temporary Injunction for Medical/Dental
Services” (Doc. # 15) that Plaintiff, Brian M. Gross, filed pro se with the Court on
January 26, 2012, is denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 8th

day of

February

, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK
Senior Judge, United States District Court

3