Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01604/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01604-0/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 SVK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tyerel Darnel Luke, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Officer Urias, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1604-PHX-JAT (DKD)

ORDER

Plaintiff Tyerel Darnel Luke brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Officers Urias, Nelson, Goodale, Buckles, and Sergeant McClellan of the Maricopa

County Sheriff’s Office. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 23).

Although Defendants have not responded, the Court finds that no response is necessary. 

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

I. Background

Plaintiff’s claims arose during his confinement in the Lower Buckeye Jail. Plaintiff

alleged that on February 26, 2009, he was assaulted in his cell by Urias, Nelson, and Goodale

while McClellan and Buckles stood by and watched. (Doc. 1.) The Court screened the

Complaint, found that it stated a claim for excessive force, and directed Defendants to

answer. (Doc. 6.)

II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

In his two-page motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff asserts that he is

suffering with mental health issues and is returning to the Lower Buckeye Jail from the

Case 2:10-cv-01604-JAT Document 29 Filed 03/17/11 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Fourth Avenue Jail. (Doc. 23 at 1.) He asks the Court to order that he has access to pencils,

paper, and legal materials in his cell in the psychiatric ward to enable him to respond to the

Court if his request for counsel is not granted. (Id.)

III. Legal Standard and Analysis

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy and “one that should

not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) (quoting 11A C. Wright, A.

Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, pp. 129-130 (2d ed. 1995)). An

injunction may be granted only where the movant shows 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 Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 376 (2008); Am.

Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). The

movant has the burden of proof on each element of the test. Environmental Council of

Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). In addition, a court may

not issue an injunction against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it.

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969). 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) also imposes requirements on prisoner

litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. “Preliminary

injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the

harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary

to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Thus, § 3626(a)(2) limits the court’s power

to grant preliminary injunctive relief to inmates; “no longer may courts grant or approve

relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” Gilmore

v. People of the State of Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000).

 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any of the elements necessary

for a preliminary injunction. To meet the irreparable harm requirement, Plaintiff must do

more than simply allege imminent harm; he must demonstrate it. Caribbean Marine Servs.

Case 2:10-cv-01604-JAT Document 29 Filed 03/17/11 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988). This requires Plaintiff to

demonstrate by specific facts that there is a credible threat of immediate and irreparable

harm. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Mere “[s]peculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury

sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.” Caribbean Marine, 844 F.2d at 674.

Here, Plaintiff does not present any specific facts regarding what items he is permitted

to possess while in a psychiatric ward, if he has been denied access to the items that he

wants, the availability of legal assistance while in a psychiatric ward, or a need to respond

to a pending motion. This is insufficient to meet the irreparable harm requirement.

Consequently, Plaintiff cannot make the requisite showing for a preliminary injunction, and

his motion will be denied. See Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 375 (movant must demonstrate that

irreparable injury is likely without an injunction); Caribbean Marine, 844 F.2d at 674

(holding that the district court erred when it granted preliminary injunction where the

plaintiffs did not show that the alleged harm was “imminent or likely”). In addition, there

is no showing that the named Defendants have any involvement with the operation of the

psychiatric ward. See Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 110.

Without the irreparable harm showing, an injunction is not warranted, and the Court

need not address the remaining factors in the preliminary-injunction analysis.

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

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 23) and the Motion is denied.

DATED this 16th day of March, 2011.

 

Case 2:10-cv-01604-JAT Document 29 Filed 03/17/11 Page 3 of 3