Opinion
2:23-CV-00050-SAB
12-20-2023
THOMAS WILLIAM SINCLAIR RICHEY, Plaintiff, v. B. DUNCAN, DONNA BYRNES, and J. FUNNEMARK, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Stanley A. Bastian, Chief United States District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 38. The motion was heard without oral argument. Plaintiff, an inmate at Airway Heights Correctional Center, is representing himself in this matter. Defendants are represented by Aaron Williams and Alicia Mac.
On July 26, 2023, the Court ordered the service of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF No. 15. In his SAC, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have infracted and punished him for the language he has used in written grievances. Defendants answered the SAC on September 24, 2023.
On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 24. The motion is noted for hearing on April 14, 2024.
On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order. It appears the relief he was seeking is for the Court to preclude Defendants from continuing to take adverse actions against Plaintiff for engaging in protected First Amendment conduct.
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. Porretti v. Dzurenda, 11 F.4th 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1). The Court must give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system cause by the relief. Id.
Relying on its inherent authority to manage its docket, the Court declines to rule on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction at this stage of the proceeding, given the pending Motion for Summary Judgment that was filed prior to Plaintiff's current Motion. See Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016) (recognizing that district courts possess inherent power that are “governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”) The preliminary injunction asks only for injunctive relief. In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive as well as declaratory and other relief as required. It will be more efficient and expedient to resolve the case through the summary judgment motion process rather than proceed in a piecemeal manner by first reviewing this case under the preliminary injunction standard.
To obtain a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must show that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest. Porretti, 11 F.4th at 1047. Where the government opposes a preliminary injunction, the third and fourth factors merge into one inquiry. Id.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 38, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order and forward a copy to Plaintiff and counsel.