Brightly v. Corizon Health Incorporated

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 Christopher Brightly, No. CV-21-00127-TUC-JCH

9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DOC 160

10 v.

11 Corizon Health Incorporated, et al.,

12 Defendants. 13 14 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary 15 Restraining Order ("Motion"), his fifth motion for injunctive relief. (Doc. 160.) The 16 Motion seeks relief against Defendants Centurion of Arizona, LLC, Laura Elliott, NP, 17 Alicia Ferguson, Dorothy Hines, MD, and David Shinn (collectively “Centurion 18 Defendants”). (Id.) Unlike Plaintiff's previous motions for injunctive relief, the instant 19 Motion is unrelated to his medical care and instead requests an Order preventing Centurion 20 Defendants from "violating attorney/client privilege and interfering with [Plaintiff's 21 counsel's] ability to represent Plaintiff." (Id. at 4.) The Court held a Motions Hearing on 22 June 29, 2022 and inter alia denied the Motion. (See Brightly v. Corizon Health 23 Incoporated et al, 4:21-CV-00127-TUC-JCH (D. Ariz. June 29, 2022), Hr'g Tr. at 1:7.) 24 This is the Court's written order. 25 I. June 21–23, 2022 Emails 26 Between June 21 and June 23, 2022, chambers received 11 emails regarding the 27 events outlined in the Motion.1 Some emails were addressed to chambers from Plaintiff's 28 1 Following the emails, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on June 23, 2022. (See Doc. 160.) 1 counsel, and requested a telephonic hearing with chambers, while other emails were simply 2 email communications between the parties, to which chambers was copied. The Court has 3 previously admonished Plaintiff’s counsel on the meet-and-confer provisions, pursuant to 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and LRCiv 7.2(j), required before contacting the Court and the 5 inappropriateness of such email communications. (See Doc. 72 at n. 1; see also Doc. 85 at 6 n. 2.) In light of the June emails, the Court will amend its Scheduling Order (Doc. 68) to 7 remove section 6(b), the process permitting parties to contact the court to raise discovery 8 issues. Any matters before the Court must be done in writing and filed on the record. See 9 LRCiv 7.1 and 7.2. 10 II. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 11 A party seeking a temporary restraining order must satisfy the same legal standard 12 governing preliminary injunctions, including showing each of the following elements: (1) 13 a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable injury to the plaintiff 14 if injunctive relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4) 15 an advancement of the public interest. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 16 (2008). For a party to be entitled to a TRO or a preliminary injunction, “there must be a 17 relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct 18 asserted in the underlying complaint.” See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queens Med. 19 Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). This relationship is established where the TRO 20 would grant “relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” Id. Absent 21 such a relationship or nexus, district courts lack authority to grant emergency injunctive 22 relief. Id.; see also LA All. for Hum. Rts. v. Cnty. of L.A., 14 F.4th 947, 956 (9th Cir. 2021) 23 (explaining that a district court may grant injunctive relief only on “the merits of the case 24 or controversy before it, and does not have the authority to issue an injunction based on 25 claims not pled in the complaint”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 26 Here, the Motion is unrelated to the factual allegations and legal claims contained 27 in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (See Doc. 77.) As such, the Court lacks authority 28 to grant injunctive relief with respect to the Motion which involves Plaintiff's counsel's 1 || client communications. Even if the Court had the authority, Plaintiff fails to address any of || the Winter's factors. In fact, Plaintiff fails to cite any caselaw or statute in support of his || Motion and relies on speculation and conclusory observations unsupported by an affidavit. 4|| See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). For these reasons, the Court will deny with prejudice Plaintiff's 5 || request for a temporary restraining order. See LRCiv 65.1. Any future motions which are || similarly lacking will be summarily denied. 7\| I. Order 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED DENYING WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Emergency Motion || for Temporary Restraining Order that Defendants Cease Interfering with Attorney/Client 11 || Communications. (Doc. 160.) 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AMENDING the Court's Case Management Order 13 || (Doc. 68) to remove section 6(b), consistent with the directions provided above. 14 Dated this 8th day of July, 2022. 15 16 ‘

17 9S MH herb onorable John C. Hinderaker 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-