Opinion
Civil Action No. 08-cv-01571-BNB.
August 13, 2008
ORDER
Plaintiff Jose Vega has filed pro se a motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. The Court must construe the motion liberally because Mr. Vega 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 a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order 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). Similarly, a party seeking a temporary restraining order must demonstrate clearly, with specific factual allegations, that immediate and irreparable injury will result unless a temporary restraining order is issued. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b).
Mr. Vega asserts four claims for relief alleging that he has been, and continues to be, subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. However, Mr. Vega provides only vague and conclusory allegations in support of the claims he is asserting. Mr. Vega's vague and conclusory allegations of constitutional violations fail to demonstrate that he will suffer immediate and irreparable injury if no preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is entered in this action. Therefore, the motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order will be denied.
Finally, Mr. Vega also has filed a motion to consolidate this action with a prior case that is pending in this Court. See Vega v. Wiley, No. 07-cv-01356-LTB-KMT (D. Colo. filed June 28, 2007). The motion to consolidate will be denied without prejudice because the motion is not properly filed in this action. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that "Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order Pursuant to: Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 65 et seq. and District Court's Local Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 65.1" filed on July 25, 2008, is denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that "Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Consolidation of Civil Action Per Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 42(a) and in Accordance With the District Court's Civil Justice Expense and Reduction Plan Under the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990" filed on July 25, 2008, is denied without prejudice.