Akers et al v. Keszei et al

Filing 300

ORDER Denying 297 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Denying 299 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/5/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

MONTGOMERY CARL AKERS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JAMES KESZEI, et al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:07-cv-00572-JCM-GWF
ORDER

13
14
15

Presently before the court is plaintiff Akers’ motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”). (Doc.
#297). Plaintiff has also filed a motion for evidentiary hearing on the TRO. (Doc. #299).

16

According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a court may issue a temporary restraining order

17

when the moving party provides specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or

18

damage will result before the adverse party’s opposition to a motion for preliminary injunction can be

19

heard. The Supreme Court has stated that courts must consider the following factors in determining whether

20

to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits;

21

(2) likelihood of irreparable injury if preliminary relief is not granted; (3) balance of hardships; and (4)

22

advancement of the public interest. Winter v. N.R.D.C., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374–76 (2008).

23

In the motion for TRO, plaintiff alleges (1) that he is being denied meaningful communications with

24

his attorney, and (2) the “CTU” staff have been confiscating his domestic and legal mail and emails.

25

Although plaintiff has not requested any specific relief in the motion, he has attached his own emails and

26

letters to various government staff requesting contact with his attorney and access to his mail. However,

27

there is no evidence indicating that any of these requests have been denied, and the court is unable to

28

conclude that plaintiff has demonstrated either a likelihood of success on the merits or a likelihood of
irreparable injury if preliminary relief is not granted.

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for TRO (doc.

3
4
5
6

#297) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an evidentiary hearing on the TRO (doc.
#299) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED this 5th day of August, 2011.

7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2