Crist v. Tubbs et al

Filing 65

ORDER and MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 59 Motion for Discovery; denying as moot 61 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Plaintiffs replies have already been filed and accepted by the Court; denying 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 14 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 25 Motion for TRO; denying 25 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 08/02/2011. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_______________________________________________________________
DAMON CRIST,

) ORDER & MEMORANDUM DECISION
)
Plaintiff,
) Case No. 2:10-CV-675 TS
)
v.
) District Judge Ted Stewart
)
DR. KENNON TUBBS et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff/inmate, Damon Crist, filed a pro se civil rights
complaint.

See 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2011).

He has since filed

motions for preliminary injunctive relief, requesting pain
medication and a court order stopping any possible future
transfer to another facility.
The Court evaluates Plaintiff's motions for preliminary
injunctive relief.

Plaintiff appears, in part, to merely be

trying to expedite the relief he seeks in his complaint.
type of injunction is disfavored by the law.

This

See SCFC ILC, Inc.

v. Visa USA, Inc., 936 F.2d 1096, 1098-99 (10th Cir. 1991).
Additionally, because Plaintiff's medication has been reinstated
and he has not been transferred away from his preferred facility,
any relief granted by this Court would be prospective in nature.
In other words, Plaintiff is asking the Court to stop Defendants
from doing something that has not even been done yet.
Further, Plaintiff has not specified adequate facts showing
each of the four elements necessary to obtain a preliminary
injunctive order:

"(1) a substantial likelihood of prevailing
on the merits; (2) irreparable harm in the
absence of the injunction; (3) proof that the
threatened harm outweighs any damage the
injunction may cause to the party opposing
it; and (4) that the injunction, if issued,
will not be adverse to the public interest."
Brown v. Callahan, 979 F. Supp. 1357, 1361 (D. Kan. 1997)
(quoting Kan. Health Care Ass'n v. Kan. Dep't of Soc. and Rehab.
Servs., 31 F.3d 1536, 1542 (10th Cir. 1994)).
Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary and
drastic remedy to be granted only when the right to relief is
"clear and unequivocal."

SCFC ILC, Inc., 936 F.2d at 1098.

The

Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's pleadings and motions
for injunctive relief, together with Defendants' responses to his
motions, and concludes Plaintiff's claims do not rise to such an
elevated level that an emergency injunction is warranted.

In

sum, Plaintiff has not met the heightened pleading standard
required in moving for an emergency injunction.

These motions

are denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief
are DENIED.

(See Docket Entry #s 9, 14, & 25.)

The Court also

notes that, because this case is in active litigation--i.e.,
Defendants' answers have recently been filed and a Martinez
report and summary-judgment motion are due soon--relief, if
warranted, is presumably relatively not far off.
2

(2) Plaintiff's motion regarding discovery is DENIED as
premature, pending Defendants' submission of their Martinez
report and summary-judgment motion.

(See Docket Entry # 59.)

(3) Plaintiff's motion for time extension to reply to
Defendants' response to his motions for preliminary injunctive
relief are DENIED as moot.

(See Docket Entry # 61.)

Plaintiff's

replies have already been filed and accepted by the Court.
DATED this 2nd day of August, 2010.
BY THE COURT:

______________________________
TED STEWART, CHIEF JUDGE
United States District Court

3