Bailey et al v. Suey et al

Filing 99

ORDER Denying 89 Plaintiff's Motion for Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order and Denying 97 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint an E.P.A. Monitor. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 04/14/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8

ANTHONY BAILEY, et al.,

9
10
11

2:12-CV-1954 JCM (CWH)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
CAPT. SUEY, et al.,

12
13

Defendant(s).

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff John Scott’s “motion for an order to show cause

17

for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.” (Doc. # 89). Defendants have filed

18

a response in opposition. (Doc. # 94).

19

Also before the court is pro se plaintiff Anthony Bailey’s “motion for the court to appoint

20

an E.P.A. monitor to preserve asbestos evidence.” (Doc. # 97). Although defendants have not yet

21

filed a response, the court finds the frivolous nature of the motion does not warrant one.

22

Plaintiffs are pre-trial detainees incarcerated at the Clark County Detention Center

23

(“CCDC”). Plaintiffs’ primary complaints are with regards to the lack of access to direct sunlight

24

and air quality within the CCDC. Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the CCDC from continuing the

25

ongoing renovation of the structure’s north tower. According to plaintiffs, the renovation will

26

destroy evidence crucial to their claims regarding air quality.

27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

As an initial matter, the court acknowledges that the complaint was filed pro se and is

1

therefore held to less stringent standards. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document

2

filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be

3

held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”) (internal quotations and

4

citations omitted). However, “pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more

5

favorably than parties with attorneys of record.” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th

6

Cir.1986)

7

With respect to preliminary injunctions, the Supreme Court has stated that courts must

8

evaluate the following factors: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable

9

injury if preliminary relief is not granted; (3) balance of hardships; and (4) advancement of the public

10
11
12

interest. Winter v. N.R.D.C., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374–76 (2008).
The court has considered the Winter factors and concludes plaintiffs have not demonstrated
they enjoy a sufficient likelihood of success to warrant the extraordinary remedy they seek.

13

Plaintiffs baldly assert that there is asbestos within the ventilation system at CCDC, and that

14

“rumored employees” have developed cancer as a result. Plaintiffs’ allegations are wholly

15

unsubstantiated.

16
17

The court will not enjoin the ongoing renovation of the detention center on the basis of
rumors and unsupported allegations.

18

Accordingly,

19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff John Scott’s

20

“motion for an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order”

21

(doc. # 89) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Anthony Bailey’s “motion for the court to appoint

23

an E.P.A. monitor to preserve asbestos evidence” (doc. # 97) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

24

DATED April 14, 2014.

25
26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-