Cochrane v. Nevada Department et al

Filing 27

ORDER granting 9 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; ORDER denying as moot 17 Motion for Reconsideration; ORDER denying as moot 21 Motion Requesting Court Ruling. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/16/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 TERRY R. COCHRANE, 4 5 Plaintiff, vs. 6 7 8 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:20-cv-00208-GMN-BNW ORDER 9 10 11 Pending before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Terry Cochrane’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 17), and Motion Requesting Court Ruling, (ECF No. 21). 12 Plaintiff’s Motions are premised on Plaintiff’s contention that he is being denied medical 13 treatment while in the custody of Defendants that may or could cause death. However, Plaintiff 14 has been released from custody. (See Pl.’s Notice of Change of Address, ECF No. 26). The 15 legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a temporary restraining 16 order, are well established. To prevail, a plaintiff must show that irreparable injury is likely in 17 the absence of an injunction. See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) 18 (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). Under Winter, the 19 proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is 20 likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) the balance of hardships 21 tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 22 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). 23 However, a prisoner’s release from custody generally renders moot claims for injunctive 24 relief because “the released inmate is no longer subject to the prison conditions or policies he 25 challenges.” Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted); Hartmann Page 1 of 2 1 v. Cal. Dept. of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1119 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 2 Motions became moot upon his release from custody and must be DENIED. 3 Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s non-prisoner Application for Leave to 4 Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (ECF No. 9). Based on the financial information provided therein, 5 the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs pursuant to 6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 7 8 9 10 11 12 I. CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 17), and Motion Requesting Court Ruling, (ECF No. 21), are DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (ECF No. 9), is GRANTED. 16 DATED this _____ day of October, 2020. 13 14 15 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 of 2

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?