Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00683-BNB.
June 6, 2007
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed pro se on April 27, 2007, a "Motion for Preliminary Injunction." Plaintiff apparently seeks an order directing prison officials to refer him to a medical specialist qualified to treat his gender identity disorder. For the reasons stated below, the motion 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).
Plaintiff did not even file his complaint in this action until May 9, 2007, after he already had filed his motion for a preliminary injunction. As demonstrated by Magistrate Judge Boland's May 29, 2007, order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, at this time it is not clear who Plaintiff is suing in this action or how the named Defendants personally participated in the asserted constitutional violations. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of his claim. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the "Motion for Preliminary Injunction" filed on April 27, 2007, is denied.