Cox v. Neven et al
Filing
16
ORDER Denying 14 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 4/19/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
MICHAEL STEVE COX,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
DWIGHT NEVEN, et al.,
14
Case No. 2:11-CV-00103-KJD-RJJ
Defendants.
ORDER
15
16
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (#14) filed
17
April 14, 2011. Plaintiff, an inmate at Ely State Prison, seeks that the Court grant him injunctive
18
relief “to ensure that he receives proper/prescribed medical care”. (#14 at 2.)
19
Plaintiff’s Complaint avers inter alia that he suffered two “near fatal, paralyzing injuries”
20
while incarcerated, and has since, been prescribed ambulatory aids and medical care that are
21
currently being denied him. Specifically, Plaintiff avers that he needs medical treatment for his
22
“severe constipation, jaundice, crippling pains, psychotic distress, depression,” and other emotional
23
and physical pain. (#11 at 3.) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that he has been unconstitutionally
24
denied sufficient toilet tissue “to wipe his bowel movements”, soaps “to prevent skin/staff
25
infections”, and toothpaste “too (sic) reduce bad breath\tooth-gum decay\disease”. (Id.)
26
1
Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied access to the grievance process, and assigned
2
to a “non-handicap\non-accommodative unit”. (Id.)
3
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion the Court finds that Plaintiff’s pleading fails to meet the
4
standard for the granting of temporary injunctive relief. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to
5
demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, or to demonstrate that there are serious questions
6
going to the merits. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the emergent circumstances
7
necessary to merit injunctive relief without a response from the Defendants. Plaintiff’s Complaint
8
was filed in state court on November 19, 2010, and his Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
9
(averring the same basis for relief) was filed on April 14, 2011. Moreover, the Motion fails to
10
satisfactorily address the potential of irreparable injury and/or balance of hardships. Though Plaintiff
11
makes general allegations that his health may be permanently damaged and/or that he may
12
experience death should injunctive relief not be granted, he has failed to provide sufficient factual
13
allegations to support such conclusory statements.
14
15
16
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order (#14) is DENIED.
DATED this 19th day of April, 2011.
17
18
_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?