Merry v. Sandoval et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 9 Motion for TRO. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 9/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
DANIEL V. MERRY,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00164-MMD-WGC
BRIAN SANDOVAL, et al.,
Plaintiff has filed a motion titled: “Order to Show Cause For an Preliminary Injunction &
A Temporary Restraining Order.” (ECF Nos. 8, 9.)1 He seeks an order enjoining defendants from
delaying or denying the recommendations and orders of Dr. Jacob Blake on August 2, 2016 that
he receive 50mg of Methadone, three times a day, for neck injuries and disorders. (Id. at 1.) He
also asks for an order to allow him to be placed into the “big unit” for inmates with chronic care
needs housed in general population, and that he be provided with his prescribed therapy. (Id. at
1-2.) He attaches a medical record from Dr. Blake from July 15, 2016, when he was seen for a
follow up regarding chronic neck pain symptoms. (Id. at 3-6.) Dr. Blake’s assessment that date
said Plaintiff was to follow up in six to eight weeks, and that it was oaky for Plaintiff to continue
with Methadone in the amount of 50mg TID. (Id. at 5-6.)
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a “court may issue a
preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1).
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of
equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure
the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v.
Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic
Because the motion was for both a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, it was docketed
as two separate motions by the Clerk’s office.
remedy” that is “never awarded as of right.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008)
(citations omitted). Instead, in every case, the court “must balance the competing claims of
injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the requested
relief.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 23 (2008) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). The instant motion requires that the court determine
whether Plaintiff has established the following: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities
tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20 (citations omitted).
In this motion, Plaintiff does not address whether he is likely to succeed on the merits,
whether he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of
equities or the public interest. Having failed to satisfy the prerequisites for injunctive relief, his
motion is denied without prejudice. He may renew his request for injunctive relief, if deemed
appropriate, with a properly supported motion that addresses the factors discussed above.
Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 8, 9) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 13, 2017.
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?