Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00396/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00396-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 1Plaintiff’s motion is entitled “Motion for Consent, for an Extension/Continuance;

Order for Provisional Remedy; A Rehearing/Reconsideration; Enter a Declaration.” (Doc.

#35.) The Magistrate Judge has issued an Order addressing all issues except for the

provisional remedy and reconsideration. (Doc. #37.) 

WO SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anabal Ortiz, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Todd Thomas, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-0396-PHX-MHM (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Anabal Ortiz brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

various employees of the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). (Doc. #1.) Plaintiff

moved for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which the

Court denied. (Doc. ##15, 24.) Plaintiff now moves for a provisional remedy and

reconsideration of the denial of the Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining

Order.1

 (Doc. #35.)

 The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for a provisional remedy and reconsideration.

I. Background

In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff raised three Counts: in Count I, he

alleged the use of excessive force in April 2008; in Count II, he alleged denial of medical

care for the assault; and in Count III, he appears to have alleged denial of due process in

Case 2:09-cv-00396-JWS Document 38 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

connection with disciplinary proceedings. The Court dismissed one Defendant and directed

the others to answer the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. #31.)

Prior to filing the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sought a TRO and

preliminary injunction against “unsafe and extremely harsh conditions,” the pattern of

officials’ brutality and harassment, inadequate medical care, and the continuing violation of

any of his rights. (Doc. #15 at 3.) He alleged that Defendants subjected him to unsafe and

harsh conditions by not supplying him with basic hygiene and toiletries, denying him

recreational time, threatening to tamper with his food, placing the light switch outside his

cell, and exposing him to sewage fumes. (Doc. #15 at 3.) He asserted that he had not

received medical treatment for his injuries and has been denied all forms of access to the

courts. (Id. at 4.) In his separate declaration, Plaintiff claimed that he has been retaliated

against for being a witness in lawsuits filed by other inmates. (Doc. #16.) 

The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction because,

among other reasons, he failed to establish “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that

he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance

of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural

Resources Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008); Am. Trucking Ass’n v. City of

Los Angeles, 554 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). (Doc. #24.)

II. Preliminary Injunction and Reconsideration

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show “that he is likely to

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in

the public interest.” Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374. The moving party has the burden of proof

on each element of the test. Envtl. Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016,

1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000).

 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,

or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

Case 2:09-cv-00396-JWS Document 38 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

In his motion, Plaintiff generally complains that prison officials are not cooperating

in the copying of service packets, which he claims is retaliation that denies him access to the

court. Plaintiff asks for a 20- to 30-day continuance to return service packets, which the

Magistrate Judge has granted in his Order. (Doc. #35 ¶¶ 2-3, Doc. #37.) Plaintiff also asks

for a “an ‘Order,’ which will provide a provisional remedy to the present matter that is shown

to be a continual problem of reprisal by the defendants, whom (sic) chose to snowball

themselves with additional violations of Plaintiff’s rights.” (Doc. #35 ¶ 4.) As to

reconsideration, he alleges that “with the aforesaid; it would only be right for the Plaintiff to

request the court to ‘Rehear/Reconsider’ its ruling” on his motion for a Preliminary

Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. (Id. ¶ 5.) 

Other than the denial of copies necessary to prepare the service packet, Plaintiff offers

no facts in support of his motion for an unspecified provisional order; the Order of the

Magistrate Judge has granted Plaintiff an extension of time to complete the service packets.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips

in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” See Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374,

Nor has he demonstrated any grounds for reconsideration of the Court’s previous denial of

a Preliminary Injunction and TRO. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, 5 F.3d at

1263. Plaintiff is advised that his lawsuit is not grounds for this Court to intervene in every

conflict between Plaintiff and prison officials. 

///

///

///

/// 

///

Case 2:09-cv-00396-JWS Document 38 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

 IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Provisional Remedy and Rehearing/Reconsideration (contained in

Doc. #35), and the motion is denied.

DATED this 15th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00396-JWS Document 38 Filed 03/18/10 Page 4 of 4