Tennyson v. Raemisch et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 4/17/15.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00707-LTB
AUDREY L. TENNYSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICK RAEMISCH, CDOC Director;
MICHAEL MILLER, CCCF Warden;,
MELINDA McMILLIAN, CCCF Bookkeeper;
LOUIS CABLING; CCCF Head Physician;
JUDY BREZEDINE, CCCF Health Serv. Admn.;
LAURIE KNAPP, CCCF Clinical Supervisor;
DOUG ROBERTS, CDOC-PPMU Medical Monitor; and
ANTHONY DECESARO, CDOC Grievance Review Officer,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (ECF No. 5) filed on April 3, 2015. The Court must construe the Motion liberally
because Plaintiff 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 act as an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the
reasons stated below, Plaintiff fails to establish a right to preliminary injunctive relief.
The Court may not issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive
relief unless Plaintiff shows, in part, “that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result . . . before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 65(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff must certify in writing the efforts she made to give notice
and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).
The primary purpose of injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo pending a
final determination of the parties' rights. Otero Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Federal

Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Mo., 665 F.2d 275 (10th Cir.1981). A plaintiff seeking a
TRO or preliminary injunction must establish (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) irreparable injury to the plaintiff if the injunction is denied; (3) the threatened
injury to the plaintiff outweighs the injury to the party opposing the preliminary injunction;
and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Dominion Video
Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 269 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10th Cir. 2001); see also
SCFC ILC, Inc. v. Visa USA, Inc., 936 F.2d 1096, 1098 (10th Cir. 1991).
Even if Plaintiff had satisfied all of the procedural requirements for obtaining ex
parte relief pursuant to Rule 65(b)(1), the Court finds that preliminary injunctive relief is
not appropriate in this case. Because a preliminary injunction “is an extraordinary
remedy, the [plaintiff’s] right to relief must be clear and unequivocal.” Dominion Video, 269
F.3d at 1154. Plaintiff has not argued all required factors to establish his right to
temporary injunctive relief. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits of his claims or that he will suffer irreparable injury if he does not
receive free toiletries and a free prescription for Zantac, particularly when these items are
available through the commissary. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 5) filed on
April 3, 2015, is DENIED.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

17th

day of

April

, 2015.

BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

2