Opinion
8:22-cv-877-KKM-JSS
07-06-2023
JOSHUA M. SHAW, Plaintiff, v. CORIZON HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, United States District Judge
Joshua M. Shaw, a pretrial detainee proceeding in forma pauperis, sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A prior order allowed service of process to proceed on (1) the Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against Dr. Gonzalez, Nurse Murry, and Nurse Brown; and (2) the state-law negligence claims against Dr. Nabavi and Sgt. Pittman. (Doc. 27 at 10-11.) Shaw now moves for a preliminary injunction, alleging that the Defendants continue to provide inadequate treatment for his kidney condition. (Doc. 33.) He seeks an order requiring that (1) all future “medical visits” include a “board[-]certified nephrologist,” (2) the nephrologist's “orders for treatment be followed to the letter,” and (3) “[a]ll prescribed dietary orders and restrictions” be “follow[ed] to the letter.” (Id. at 4.)
Shaw's motion for preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 6.02, which governs proceedings for preliminary injunctions in this Court. The motion does not include “a proposed order.” Local Rule 6.01(a)(5); see also Local Rule 6.02(a)(1) (incorporating all requirements for Local Rule 6.01 governing temporary restraining orders into the requirements for preliminary injunctions). It does not indicate that Shaw “notif[ied] each affected party as soon as practical,” or that “an extraordinary circumstance” supported “not requiring notice.” Local Rule 6.02(b). It does not include a “precise and verified explanation of the amount and form of the required security” or move to waive a security. Local Rule 6.01(a)(3). And it fails to “include as an attachment each paper on which [Shaw] relies.” Local Rule 6.02(a)(2). Shaw's pro se status does not excuse him from complying with the Local Rules of this Court. See TriPharma, Inc. v. Safe Harvest Med., LLC, No. 8:20-cv-3083-CEH-TGW, 2022 WL 2667848, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 11, 2022) (“The Local Rules apply equally to all parties who litigate in this Court, including pro se parties.”).
Accordingly, Shaw's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 33) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with Local Rule 6.02.
ORDERED.