Johnson v. Cox et al

Filing 69

ORDER that 57 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Prospective Relief is DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/17/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

RANDY JOHNSON,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:14-CV-1326 JCM (NJK)
ORDER

v.
JAMES COX, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Presently before the court is plaintiff Randy Johnson’s (“plaintiff”) motion for preliminary
injunction and prospective relief. (ECF. No. 57). Defendants James Cox, Minor Adams, Sheryl
Foster, Brian Williams, Jo Gentry, Johnny Youngblood, Brian Henley, Jennifer Nash, Dwight
Neven, Isidro Baca, Richard Snyder, James Stogner, Jason Yelle, Francis Dreesen, Julio Calderin,
Wes Mattice and Gregory Smith (collectively, as “defendants”) have filed a response. (ECF No.
62). Plaintiff has not filed a reply and the time to do so has passed.
I.

Facts

Plaintiff is an inmate currently in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections
(“NDOC”). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges numerous civil rights claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 against multiple defendants for events that took place while plaintiff was incarcerated at the
Southern Desert Correctional Center, Warm Springs Correctional Center, and High Desert State
Prison. (ECF No. 5).
In the instant motion, plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against defendant Williams and
three non-parties to the suit—correctional officer R. Arnold, law librarian Rashonda Smith, and
an unidentified mailroom worker. (ECF No. 57).

1

II.

Legal Standard

2

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court may enter an order for preliminary

3

injunctive relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions to the extent otherwise

4

authorized by law. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). A preliminary injunction seeks to preserve the status

5

quo of a case and to prevent irreparable harm from occurring before a judgment is issued. Textile

6

Unlimited Inc. v. BMH & Co., 240 F.3d 781, 786 (9th Cir. 2001).

7

“Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy and it will not be granted absent a showing of

8

probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury should it not be granted.”

9

Shelton v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assoc., 539 F.2d 1197, 1199 (9th Cir. 1976). The Supreme

10

Court has instructed that courts must consider the following elements in determining whether to

11

issue a preliminary injunction: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of

12

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

13

of the public interest. Winter v. N.R.D.C., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The test is conjunctive; the party

14

seeking the injunction carries the burden of persuasion with regard to each element.

15

Additionally, post-Winter, the Ninth Circuit has maintained its serious question and sliding

16

scale test. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011). “Under

17

this approach, the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger

18

showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Id. at 1131. “Serious questions

19

going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support

20

issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood

21

of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 1135 (internal quotation

22

marks omitted).

23

III.

Discussion

24

In his motion, plaintiff requests that monetary sanctions be imposed based on the following

25

allegations: that the mailroom worker stole a money order his mother sent in the mail; that

26

defendant Williams was informed of this theft; that correctional officer Arnold ordered defendant’s

27

cellmate to “roll up” his property, causing the loss of his property; and that librarian Smith failed

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

to provide him with legal copies in a timely manner. (ECF No. 57). Plaintiff argues that these

2

allegations caused him to miss numerous filing deadlines in the instant action. (ECF No. 57).

3

Even assuming, arguendo, that a request for monetary sanctions is appropriate under the

4

instant motion, plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to meet the requisite burden for a preliminary

5

injunction. While these alleged events may have been a factor in plaintiff missing filing deadlines,

6

plaintiff fails to show or even allege a likelihood of success had he been able to meet the deadlines.

7

Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and prospective

8

relief.

9

IV.

Conclusion

10

Accordingly,

11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for

12

preliminary injunction and prospective relief (ECF No. 57) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

13
14
15

DATED August 17, 2016.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-