Barren v. Dzurenda

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 3, 2023
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00142
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 5 Donald Robin Barren, Case No. 2:19-cv-00142-CDS-VCF

6 Plaintiff

Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a 7 v. Preliminary Injunction

8 James Dzurenda, et al., [ECF No. 116]

9 Defendants

10 11 Incarcerated pro so plaintiff Donald Robin Barren brings this civil-rights lawsuit against 12 various prison officials, alleging violations of his due-process rights. A few days ago, Barren filed 13 a motion for a preliminary injunction, along with a supplemental brief. ECF Nos. 116, 117. The 14 defendants have not yet responded to the motion, but having reviewed it, I find that a decision 15 on the motion is appropriate at this juncture without briefing from the defendants. Barren’s 16 motion altogether fails to address the factors that courts must consider in determining the 17 appropriateness of injunctive relief. Furthermore, it is unclear what relief Barren seeks. Even 18 construing his injunction motion liberally, it appears that he disagrees with the parole board’s 19 decision, which is an insufficient basis for this court to award relief. So because Barren does not 20 demonstrate that the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction is appropriate, I deny his 21 motion. 22 I. Legal standard 23 “A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be 24 granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” Fraihat v. U.S. 25 Immigr. and Customs Enf’t, 16 F.4th 613, 635 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 26 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted)). The Supreme Court has explained that to 1 obtain an injunction, a plaintiff “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he 2 is likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of 3 equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. 4 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). The Ninth Circuit uses a “‘sliding scale’ approach to 5 preliminary injunctions.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). Under 6 that approach, “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance of hardships that tips 7 sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the 8 plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in 9 the public interest.” Fraihat, 16 F.4th at 636 (quoting All. for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1135) 10 (cleaned up). 11 II. Discussion 12 Barren’s injunction motion does not address any of the Winter factors. ECF No. 116. In the 13 “supplement” that he filed separately, he acknowledges the factors but does not provide any 14 substantive analysis or discussion of them. ECF No. 117 at 1. Even if he had addressed them, it is 15 unclear from the face of the motion—or the supplement—what relief he seeks. It appears that 16 Barren disagrees with the parole board’s decision at a hearing in September 2022, in addition to 17 other decisions the board has made pertaining to him. See, e.g., ECF No. 116 at 1. Barren references 18 various Nevada statutes and chapters of the United States Code but does not explain how they 19 are relevant here. Id. While “pro se pleadings must be construed liberally” (Draper v. Rosario, 836 20 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002))), even 21 construing Barren’s motion in a liberal fashion, I cannot determine what injunctive relief he 22 seeks. This injunction motion appears to be Barren’s attempt to litigate the underlying merits of 23 his case through the seeking of an injunction, which is improper. Because he does not 24 demonstrate the appropriateness of injunctive relief at this time—and as his request for relief is 25 unclear—I deny his motion for a preliminary injunction. 26 1 III. Conclusion 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Barren’s motion for a preliminary injunction [ECF 3 No. 116] is DENIED. The defendants’ deadline (January 13, 2023) to respond to the motion is 4 VACATED. 5 DATED: January 3, 2023 6 _________________________________ Cristina D. Silva 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26