Bailey et al v. Suey et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
ANTHONY BAILEY, et al.,
2:12-CV-1954 JCM (CWH)
CAPT. SUEY, et al.,
Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff John Scott’s “motion for an order to show cause
for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.” (Doc. # 89). Defendants have filed
a response in opposition. (Doc. # 94).
Also before the court is pro se plaintiff Anthony Bailey’s “motion for the court to appoint
an E.P.A. monitor to preserve asbestos evidence.” (Doc. # 97). Although defendants have not yet
filed a response, the court finds the frivolous nature of the motion does not warrant one.
Plaintiffs are pre-trial detainees incarcerated at the Clark County Detention Center
(“CCDC”). Plaintiffs’ primary complaints are with regards to the lack of access to direct sunlight
and air quality within the CCDC. Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the CCDC from continuing the
ongoing renovation of the structure’s north tower. According to plaintiffs, the renovation will
destroy evidence crucial to their claims regarding air quality.
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
As an initial matter, the court acknowledges that the complaint was filed pro se and is
therefore held to less stringent standards. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document
filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be
held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). However, “pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more
favorably than parties with attorneys of record.” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th
With respect to preliminary injunctions, the Supreme Court has stated that courts must
evaluate the following factors: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable
injury if preliminary relief is not granted; (3) balance of hardships; and (4) advancement of the public
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.
Plaintiffs baldly assert that there is asbestos within the ventilation system at CCDC, and that
“rumored employees” have developed cancer as a result. Plaintiffs’ allegations are wholly
The court will not enjoin the ongoing renovation of the detention center on the basis of
rumors and unsupported allegations.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff John Scott’s
“motion for an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order”
(doc. # 89) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Anthony Bailey’s “motion for the court to appoint
an E.P.A. monitor to preserve asbestos evidence” (doc. # 97) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED April 14, 2014.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
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?