Hudson v. State Of Nevada et al

Filing 18

ORDER: Plaintiff's 2 Motion for TRO is Denied. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 02/27/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SRK)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 JOE E. HUDSON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff has submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On 19 August 15, 2008, the Court entered an order denying plaintiff's motion to certify this case as a class 20 action. (Docket # 9). Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining 21 order. 22 The legal principles applicable to a request for preliminary injunctive relief are well 23 established. To prevail, the moving party must show either "(1) a likelihood of success on the merits 24 and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits 25 and the balance of hardships tipping in [the moving party's] favor." Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. 26 Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985), quoting Apple Computer, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / 2:08-cv-0992-KJD-RJJ ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521, 523 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Hartikka v. United States, 754 F.2d 1516, 1518 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. "Under either formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury." Id. In the absence of a significant showing of irreparability, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id. In this case, Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order revamping the entire Nevada Department of Corrections' policy and procedure in regard to placement or movement of inmates between institutions. As stated above, the court has denied plaintiff's request to certify this case as a class action. The question of irreparability therefore goes only to plaintiff himself, and plaintiff speaks only in broad terms regarding prison policies and their impact on prisoners' Constitutional rights. The court finds, therefore, that plaintiff has not made the requisite showing of a significant threat of irreparable injury to himself. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED (Docket # 2). DATED: February 27, 2009.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2