Robledo-Valdez v. Smelser et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 7 8 Motions for Injunctive Relief, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 8/7/12.(lygsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01833-BNB
CRAIG S. ROBLEDO-VALDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN DICK SMELSER, CCA,
TIANA LUCERO, CCCF,
RAY ROMERO, CCCF,
ALBERT MARTINEZ, CCA,
A. ZAVARAS, Director of D.O.C.,
CORRECTIONS CORP. OF AMERICA (CCA), and
ELIJAH RIDGEWELL,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff, Craig S. Robledo-Valdez, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections (DOC) who currently is incarcerated at the Centennial
Correctional Facility in Canon City, Colorado. He initiated this action by filing pro se a
prisoner complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his civil rights were
violated. On July 26, 2012, Mr. Robledo-Valdez filed a document titled “Emergency
Letter for Help/Intervention” (ECF No. 7). On July 27, 2012, Mr. Robledo-Valdez filed a
“Request for Preliminary Injunction” (ECF No. 8).
The Court must construe the documents liberally because Mr. Robledo-Valdez 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 documents will be construed liberally as a motions for a preliminary
injunction, and will be denied.
In the July 26 motion, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that he has been wrongfully
placed in solitary confinement; been denied access to the law library; been denied
access to a shower for up to one hundred hours; received false and retaliatory
disciplinary reports; and been denied legal supplies. In the July 27 motion, Plaintiff
requests his transfer to a “valid” prison cell, an order preventing the defendants from
placing him in solitary confinement, a cell that does not have a broken shower, an order
directing the law librarian to provide him access to supplies and the library, and an order
directing certain defendants to refrain from harassing him.
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).
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. Robledo-Valdez 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. Robledo-Valdez’s allegations are speculative or concern past events. Mr.
Robledo-Valdez 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 motions for injunctive relief will be denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motions for a preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 7 & 8) are
denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

7th day of

August

, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

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

3