Alexander v. Colorado Department of Corrections, The et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying 1 Motion for TRO, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/15/12.(lsw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00626-BNB
DARRICK ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COLORADO DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,
THE COLORADO DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS & ITS AFFILIATES, public &/or private,
STERLING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and
COLORADO DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS STAFF, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion for a temporary restraining order
(ECF No. 1) filed by Plaintiff, Darrick Alexander. Mr. Alexander is a prisoner in the
custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) at the Sterling Correctional
Facility in Sterling, Colorado. Mr. Alexander seeks to be removed from the custody of
the DOC and placed in a federal facility in Englewood, Colorado, to serve his sentence.
The Court must construe the motion liberally because Mr. Alexander 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.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide as follows with respect to issuance
of a temporary restraining order:

The court may issue a temporary restraining order without
written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only
if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint
clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the movant before the adverse party
can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney
certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the
reasons why it should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
Mr. Alexander alleges that he has been harassed and mistreated since he
entered the DOC in 2009 because he was convicted of assaulting a peace officer. He
maintains that his life is in danger as long as he remains in the custody of the DOC, and
he asks to be transferred to the federal penitentiary in Englewood because placement in
any other non-DOC facility would impose a hardship on his mother who lives in the
Denver area. Mr. Alexander specifically “requests because of the hazards at issue &
the potentional [sic] increase of fatality that the injunction be granted without the
requirement of notifying the defendants at the risk of retaliation & increase of hazard.”
(ECF No. 1 at 19.)
The Court finds that Mr. Alexander is not entitled to issuance of a temporary
restraining order. The Court notes initially that Mr. Alexander has not even filed a
pleading in this action that identifies clearly who he intends to sue and that provides a
short and plain statement of the specific claims for relief he intends to pursue. More
importantly, Mr. Alexander fails to demonstrate he will suffer immediate and irreparable
injury before Defendants can be heard in opposition. With the exception of one specific
allegation in the motion for temporary restraining order regarding an incident that
occurred on February 28, 2012, when Mr. Alexander allegedly found a razor blade in his
2

food (see ECF No. 1 at 17), the motion consists of allegations of past harm, some of
which extend back to 2009, that do not demonstrate Mr. Alexander is facing immediate
and irreparable injury. Finally, the relief Mr. Alexander seeks, transfer to a different
facility, is not appropriate by means of a temporary restraining order because the
purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo. See Sosa v.
Lantz, 660 F. Supp.2d 283, 290 (D. Conn. 2009). Therefore, the motion for a temporary
restraining order will be denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 1) filed on
March 12, 2012, is denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

15th

day of

March

, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

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

3