Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05445/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05445-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK J. SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-05445-SI 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Re: Dkt. No. 17

Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 17) of the order denying his 

request for a preliminary injunction (Docket No. 9). Plaintiff essentially asks the court to take a 

second look at some of the evidence he submitted in support of his request for a preliminary 

injunction because he does not think the court looked at the evidence carefully enough. Plaintiff is 

not entitled to relief because does not show a material difference in fact or law exists from that 

which was presented to the court before entry of the order denying the request for preliminary 

injunction; does not show the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after 

the time of such order; and does not show a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts 

which were presented to the court before such interlocutory order. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). Instead, 

his motion shows nothing more than a disagreement with the court’s conclusion that he was not 

entitled to interim relief. 

Plaintiff claims in this action that he was under threat from some other inmates in a security 

threat group and was attacked three times, with the most recent attack occurring more than a year 

before he filed this action. Prison officials have different options as to how they will protect an 

inmate in danger of attack, so it does not necessarily follow that a threat plus an attack necessarily 

means that any particular prison official has been deliberately indifference to the attacked inmate’s 

Case 3:19-cv-05445-SI Document 19 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

safety. Here, the fact that it has now been more than eighteen months since the most recent attack 

on plaintiff suggests that prison officials have found a way to protect plaintiff in his current facility 

and are not currently acting with deliberate indifference to his safety. He has not shown his 

entitlement to interim relief. See Caribbean Marine Services Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 

674 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A plaintiff must do more than merely allege imminent harm sufficient to 

establish standing; a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to 

preliminary injunctive relief.”) The motion for reconsideration of the denial of the request for a 

preliminary injunction is DENIED. Docket No. 17. No further motions for reconsideration of the 

order denying the request for preliminary injunction or this order may be filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-05445-SI Document 19 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 2