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