Tennyson v. Raemisch

Full title: AUDREY L. TENNYSON, Plaintiff, v. RICK RAEMISCH, CDOC Director; MICHAEL…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Apr 17, 2015

Civil Action No. 15-cv-00707-LTB (D. Colo. Apr. 17, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 15-cv-00707-LTB

04-17-2015

AUDREY L. TENNYSON, Plaintiff, v. RICK RAEMISCH, CDOC Director; MICHAEL MILLER, CCCF Warden;, MELINDA McMILLIAN, CCCF Bookkeeper; LOUIS CABLING; CCCF Head Physician; JUDY BREZEDINE, CCCF Health Serv. Admn.; LAURIE KNAPP, CCCF Clinical Supervisor; DOUG ROBERTS, CDOC-PPMU Medical Monitor; and ANTHONY DECESARO, CDOC Grievance Review Officer, Defendants.

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge United States District Court

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's pro se Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 5) filed on April 3, 2015. The Court must construe the Motion liberally because Plaintiff 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 (10^th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should act as an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff fails to establish a right to preliminary injunctive relief.

The Court may not issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive relief unless Plaintiff shows, in part, "that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result . . . before the adverse party can be heard in opposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff must certify in writing the efforts she made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).

The primary purpose of injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo pending a final determination of the parties' rights. Otero Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Mo., 665 F.2d 275 (10^th Cir.1981). A plaintiff seeking a TRO or preliminary injunction must establish (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury to the plaintiff if the injunction is denied; (3) the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the injury to the party opposing the preliminary injunction; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 269 F.3d 1149, 1154 (10^th Cir. 2001); see also SCFC ILC, Inc. v. Visa USA, Inc., 936 F.2d 1096, 1098 (10^th Cir. 1991).

Even if Plaintiff had satisfied all of the procedural requirements for obtaining ex parte relief pursuant to Rule 65(b)(1), the Court finds that preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate in this case. Because a preliminary injunction "is an extraordinary remedy, the [plaintiff's] right to relief must be clear and unequivocal." Dominion Video, 269 F.3d at 1154. Plaintiff has not argued all required factors to establish his right to temporary injunctive relief. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claims or that he will suffer irreparable injury if he does not receive free toiletries and a free prescription for Zantac, particularly when these items are available through the commissary. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 5) filed on April 3, 2015, is DENIED.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 17^th day of April, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court