Opinion
Civil Action No. 09-cv-02087-BNB.
October 1, 2009
ORDER
Plaintiff Sammie Lee Denson has filed pro se a "Motion for an Injunction" in which he asks the Court to direct Defendants to remove Mr. Denson from administrative segregation and place him in a level III custody facility. The Court must construe the motion liberally because Mr. Denson is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, the "Motion for an Injunction" will be denied.
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits, that he will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues, that the threatened injury outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party, and that the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest. See Lundgrin v. Claytor , 619 F.2d 61, 63 (10th Cir. 1980). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and "the primary goal of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the pre-trial status quo." RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal , 552 F.3d 1203, 1208 (10th Cir. 2009). Therefore, "courts should be especially cautious when granting an injunction that requires the nonmoving party to take affirmative action — a mandatory preliminary injunction — before a trial on the merits occurs." Id. Because Mr. Denson is seeking a mandatory preliminary injunction that seeks to alter the status quo, he must make a heightened showing of the four factors listed above. See id. at 1209.
As noted above, Mr. Denson seeks to be removed from administrative segregation and placed in a lower-custody facility. He alleges that he was placed in administrative segregation without adequate due process, that the conditions in administrative segregation amount to cruel and unusual punishment and are causing physical and mental injuries, and that he does not deserve to be placed in administrative segregation. However, he fails to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits, that he will suffer irreparable injury if no preliminary injunction is issued, that his threatened injuries outweigh whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party, or that a preliminary injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Therefore, the "Motion for an Injunction" will be denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the "Motion for an Injunction" filed on September 1, 2009, is denied.