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)

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