Santos v. Allen et al

Filing 233

ORDER that Plaintiff's "Imminent Danger" Petition for a Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Order Barring Defendant's from Transferring Plaintiff Back to Ely State Prison (## 168 , 169 ) are DENIED. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 3/9/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

RONALD SANTOS,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

Case No. 2:11-CV-01251-KJD-NJK

ISIDRO BACA, et al.,

14

ORDER

Defendants.

15
16

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Imminent Danger” Petition for a Preliminary Injunction and

17

Motion for Order Barring Defendants from Transferring Plaintiff Back to Ely State Prison

18

(##168,169). Defendants filed a response in opposition (#175), to which Plaintiff replied (#190).

19

Legal Standard

20

The purpose of a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is to preserve the

21

status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court

22

to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. Johnson

23

v. Nguyen, 2015 WL 105826, at *8 (D. Nev. Jan. 7, 2015).

24

A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that is “never awarded as

25

of right.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008) (citations omitted). Instead, in every case,

26

the court “must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of

1

the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

2

Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 23 (2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The instant motion

3

requires that the Court determine whether Plaintiff has established the following: (1) he is likely to

4

succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;

5

(3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20.

6

Additionally, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) mandates that prisoner litigants must

7

satisfy additional requirements when seeking preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials.

8

The PLRA provides, in relevant part:

9
10
11

Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to
correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means
necessary to correct that harm. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact
on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief
and shall respect the principles of comity set out in paragraph (1)(B) in tailoring any
preliminary relief.

12
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Thus, § 3626(a)(2) limits the court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive
13
relief to inmates. See Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir.2000)
14
(“Section 3626(a) ... operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts and
15
to protect the bargaining power of prison administrators-no longer may courts grant or approve relief
16
that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.”).
17
Analysis
18
Here, Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction against intentional damage to his mail,
19
television and personal property, and intentional infliction of bodily harm by unknown NDOC
20
officials. #168 at 2. Plaintiff’s requests are unrelated to the merits of his original claims of
21
violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act or Cruel and Unusual
22
Punishment (for allegedly unsafe prison conditions). #36 at 3,10-22. The administrative grievance
23
process provided for all inmates in NDOC custody, allows Plaintiff to commence a new action
24
regarding the aforementioned alleged misconduct by NDOC officials. However, filing a petition for
25
a preliminary injunction regarding those allegations in the present, unrelated case is not appropriate.
26
2

1

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a probability of success on the merits or serious questions going to

2

the merits of the present case and so his request is denied.

3

III. Conclusion

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Imminent Danger” Petition for a Preliminary

5

Injunction and Motion for Order Barring Defendant’s from Transferring Plaintiff Back to Ely State

6

Prison (##168, 169) are DENIED.

7
8

DATED this 9th day of March 2016.

9
10
11
12

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3