Todd v. Garden et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying 32 Motion for TRO; denying 33 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 37 Motion for copies of case free of charge; denying 22 Motion for an In Rem Action on Defendant Jason Jackman, individually and Memorandum i n Support; denying 25 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 25 Motion for Protective Order; denying 28 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 30 Motion directing defendant to answer complaint; denying 32 Motion for Preliminary Injunc tion. The Clerk of Court shall take note that no further motions for appointed counsel will be accepted by the Court. Within fourteen days, Defendants shall file with the Court a proposed order--with analysis and conclusions--based on their 23 motion to dismiss. Plaintiff shall respond to the Proposed Order within fourteen days of filing of the proposed order. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 7/29/2016. (jwt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
SHAYNE TODD,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
RICHARD GARDEN et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:14-CV-453-DN
District Judge David Nuffer

The Court now rules on motions Plaintiff has filed in this case.
The Court first evaluates Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief.
Specifically, he requests that he be prescribed certain medications.
However, 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 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. He appears to be seeking the same relief as he requests in his Complaint
and merely trying to expedite that relief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order are
DENIED. (See Docket Entry #s 25 & 32.)
(2) Plaintiff's second motion for appointed counsel, (see Docket Entry # 28), is DENIED
for the same reasons stated in a previous order in this case denying appointment of
voluntary pro bono counsel, (see Docket Entry # 5). The Clerk of Court shall take
note that no further motions for appointed counsel will be accepted by the Court.
(3) Plaintiff’s motion for in rem action against Defendant Jackman is DENIED as
irrelevant. (See Docket Entry # 22.)
(4) Plaintiff’s motions that Defendants be directed to answer the Complaint and for
default judgment against Defendants are DENIED. (See Docket Entry #s 30 & 33.)
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is a proper filing in response to being served with the
Complaint. No answer is required when a motion to dismiss is filed.
(5) Plaintiff’s motion for free copies of documents from the docket is DENIED. (See
Docket Entry # 37.) This appears to be based on Plaintiff’s wish to show that
Defendants have not properly responded to the Complaint, which they have.
(6) Within fourteen days, Defendants shall file with the Court a proposed order--with
analysis and conclusions--based on their motion to dismiss. (See Docket Entry # 23.)
The proposed order shall be prepared in Times New Roman font and otherwise

2

comply with Court rules. Respondent shall file the proposed order in the EM/ECF
system using the Notice of Filing event and submit the proposed order in word
processing format to: [e-mail] .
(7) Plaintiff shall respond to the Proposed Order within fourteen days of filing of the
proposed order.
DATED this 29th day of July, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

CHIEF JUDGE DAVID NUFFER
United States District Court

3