Harris v. State of Nevada

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 ANTHONY HARRIS, Case No. 3:22-cv-556-ART-CSD 5 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING R&R 6 v. (ECF Nos. 82, 96) 7 GITTERE, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 Plaintiff Anthony Harris sought a preliminary injunction in his pro se civil 10 rights suit against several Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) correctional 11 employees and administrators. Magistrate Judge Denney issued a Report and 12 Recommendation (R&R) denying Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction 13 because it lacked a sufficient nexus to the claims in his complaint. (ECF No. 96.) 14 Plaintiff did not object. 15 The Court adopts the R&R and denies the motion for preliminary injunction 16 without prejudice. 17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint alleges deliberate indifference 19 claims against Ely State Prison Administrators for deliberate indifference to 20 serious medical needs, violations of Plaintiff’s due process rights, a failure-to- 21 protect claim, three conditions-of-confinement claims, a retaliation claim, a 22 medical privacy claim, and a Nevada Constitution claim. (See ECF No. 17.) 23 Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction seeks maintenance records for his cell at High 24 Desert State Prison, video footage of his meal handouts at Ely, records about his 25 transfer to Lovelock Correctional Center, a prohibition on moving the Plaintiff 26 from his current unit, and fulfillment of his requests for medications, law library 27 access, and medical shoes and mattresses. 28 1 II. Standard of Review 2 The Court is not required to “review . . . any issue that is not the subject 3 of an objection” to an R&R. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see, e.g., 4 United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 5 A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate (1) a likelihood 6 of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm if preliminary relief 7 is not granted, (3) the balance of equities is in their favor, and (4) an injunction 8 is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 9 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The analysis for a temporary restraining order is “substantially 10 identical” to that of a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co, Inc. v. 11 John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). 12 A court may grant a preliminary injunction if there is “a relationship 13 between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct 14 asserted in the underlying complaint.” Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's 15 Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). “The relationship between the 16 preliminary injunction and the underlying complaint is sufficiently strong where 17 the preliminary injunction would grant ‘relief of the same character as that which 18 may be granted finally.’” Id. (quoting De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 19 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)). 20 III. Analysis 21 Magistrate Judge Denney found that Plaintiff's motion is about different 22 facilities and conduct not alleged in his Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 23 96.) The Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s motion to the extent that it focuses on 24 different facilities. To the extent that Plaintiff’s motion concerns discovery 25 deadlines and potential extensions for dispositive briefing, Plaintiff may file 26 relevant motions or objections. 27 // 28 // 1 IV. Conclusion 2 The Court agrees with Judge Denney’s R&R, adopts it (ECF No. 96), and 3 || denies Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 82) without 4 || prejudice. 5 DATED THIS 17th day of March 2025. 6 j Vd 7 toes Lowe em □□ 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28