Winn v. Dzurenda

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 19, 2021
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00613
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 MANUEL WINN, Case No. 2:19-cv-00613-KJD-NJK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 9 v. RESTRAINING ORDER

10 JAMES DZURENDA, et al.,

11 Defendants.

12 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF #36) and 13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF #37). Defendants responded in opposition (ECF 14 #42/43), but Plaintiff did not reply. 15 I. Factual and Procedural Background 16 Plaintiff Manuel Winn (“Winn”) brought an inmate civil rights action against Defendants 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF #3, at 1). The complaint lists seven causes of action 18 stemming from violations of Winn’s first, fifth, eighth and fourteenth amendment rights. Id. at 8– 19 25. The causes of action stem from alleged violations of Winn’s right to exercise his religion, 20 cruel and unusual punishment, retaliation for filing grievances against Defendants, insufficient 21 access to the law library, and due process violations regarding Winn’s transfer to Saguaro 22 Correctional Center. Id. 23 Winn’s motions for injunctive relief allege facts involving a corrections officer who is 24 not named in the original complaint. (ECF #36). Winn alleges that an incident took place as he 25 was returning from the prison’s administrative building after completing a telephone conference 26 with Defendants regarding his lawsuit. (ECF #35, at 1). While restrained, Winn entered his 27 housing unit and was met by correction officer H. Shabazz (“Shabazz”). Id. Shabazz grabbed 28 Winn’s arm tightly and asked him where he was coming from. Id. Winn told him that he was 1 coming back from a conference regarding his lawsuit and Shabazz replied, “Oh, your [sic] suing 2 us.” Id. Winn did not respond to that statement, and Shabazz asked Winn what cell he was in. Id. 3 After Winn gave him the cell number, Shabazz pulled him in the direction of the cell. Id. When 4 they reached the door of Winn’s cell, there was a nurse waiting for him. Id. at 2. With the nurse 5 ready to assist Winn, Shabazz yelled “Face the wall!!! Or I’m goin [sic] to do to you what I 6 really want to do anyway!!!” Id. Winn complied and was frightened because Shabazz allegedly 7 has a reputation for assaulting inmates. Id. The cell door opened, and Winn entered where 8 another officer released his restraints, and the nurse gave him his blood pressure medication. Id. 9 at 3. Winn asks the Court to grant a temporary restraining order, preventing the guards from 10 retaliating against him for filing the lawsuit and requiring Shabazz to stay at least 50 feet away 11 from him during the pendency of the lawsuit. (ECF #36, at 3). 12 II. Legal Standard 13 A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction “must establish that he is likely to succeed on 14 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 15 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 16 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Ninth Circuit uses a “‘sliding scale’ 17 approach to these factors, according to which ‘a stronger showing of one element may offset a 18 weaker showing of another.’” hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 938 F.3d 985, 992 (9th Cir. 19 2019) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011)). 20 To warrant injunctive relief, there must be “a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a 21 motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth in the underlying complaint itself.” Pac. 22 Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). If a 23 plaintiff seeks injunctive relief “based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not 24 have authority to issue an injunction.” Id. at 633. 25 III. Analysis 26 Because Winn is a pro se plaintiff, the Court will construe his motions for injunctive 27 relief liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is to be 28 liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less 1 | stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”). However, “pro se litigants in the 2 | ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record.” Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1362 (9th Cir. 1986). Even with a liberal construction, the 4| Court cannot grant Winn’s motion. Winn has not demonstrated that any of the elements required 5 | to grant injunctive relief have been met. There is no assertion that Winn is likely to succeed on 6 | the merits, that Winn is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief, that 7 | the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that the requested relief is in the public interest. The 8 | Court, even with a liberal interpretation of the motions, cannot make these arguments for Winn. 9 | Because the essential arguments have not been made, the Court denies Winn’s motion. 10 TV. Conclusion 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary 12 | Restraining Order (ECF #36) is DENIED. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF #37)is DENIED. 15 | Dated this 18th day of May, 2021. 16 ~ Bod Kent J. Dawson 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-