Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00496/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00496-3/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

WO BL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ivan Jay Linebarger, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Herb Hailey,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0496-PHX-SMM (JCG)

ORDER

Plaintiff Ivan Jay Linebarger filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Herb

Hailey alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by Defendant’s failure to protect

him (Doc. #1). Plaintiff argued that Defendant refused to place Plaintiff in protective

segregation despite numerous requests (id.). Plaintiff now seeks injunctive relief because his

life is in danger in general population (Doc. #7). 

“No preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party.”

Fed.R.Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Furthermore, the Court may grant a temporary restraining order

without notice only if the applicant certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which

have been made to give notice and the reasons that notice should not be required.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b). Because Plaintiff has failed to serve a copy of his request for injunctive

relief on Defendant, his request will be denied. 

In considering the merits of the claim, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to

the injunctive relief requested. Plaintiff is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief only if he

shows either: “‘(1) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable

injury, or (2) the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the balance of

Case 2:07-cv-00496-SMM Document 13 Filed 10/09/07 Page 1 of 2
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 -

hardships tipping in [the movant’s] favor. These two formulations represent two points on

a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability

of success decreases.’” MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 516-517 (9th

Cir. 1993). Plaintiff has made bare allegations regarding his requests for protective

segregation and Defendant’s response. In particular, Plaintiff has not indicated whether his

requests for protection were investigated and whether Defendant acted reasonably in denying

Plaintiff’s requested placement. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844 (1994)

(Providing that prison officials who know of a substantial risk to an inmate’s safety “may be

found free from liability if they responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately

was not averted”). Thus, at this early stage, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a sufficient

likelihood of success on the merits.

Accordingly, 

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

only with respect to Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief.

All other matters in this action remain with the Magistrate Judge for disposition as

appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 7) is DENIED.

DATED this 9th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00496-SMM Document 13 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 2