Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01714/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01714-2/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

Thomas Edmond Cochran, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bennie Rollins, et al., 

Defendants. 

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1714-PHX-MHM (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Thomas Edmond Cochran, who is confined at the Arizona State Prison

Complex-Florence, filed this civil rights action against various officials of the Arizona

Department of Corrections (ADC). The remaining claims in this case involve the denial of

Plaintiff’s request for placement in Protective Segregation. (Doc. #47.) 

Plaintiff moves for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to

prevent his removal from the Special Management Unit (SMU) I and placement “in the

vicinity of any inmates.” (Doc. #51.) The Court will deny the request for a TRO and direct

Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. 

I. Temporary Restraining Order

Whether to grant or deny a motion for a temporary restraining order is within the

Court’s discretion. See Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d 1130, 1132-33 (9th Cir.

1979). “The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard

for issuing a preliminary injunction.” Whitman v. Hawaiian Tug & Barge

Corporation/Young Bros., Ltd. Salaried Pension Plan, 27 F. Supp. 2d 1225, 1228 (D. Haw.

Case 2:07-cv-01714-MHM-JRI Document 52 Filed 08/20/08 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 -

1998). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show either: “(1) a

likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious

questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its

favor.” Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 198 F.3d 725, 731 (9th Cir. 1999). These are not two

separate tests; they represent “extremes of a singular continuum.” Id. (quotation omitted).

The moving party 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).

 As a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must do more than allege

imminent harm sufficient to establish standing; he must also demonstrate immediate

threatened injury. Carribbean Marine Serv. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988).

In other words, a plaintiff must show a real or immediate threat—a likelihood of substantial

and immediate irreparable injury. Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2001)

(quotation and citation omitted). Speculative injury is not sufficient. Carribean Marine

Serv., 844 F.3d at 674. 

Although Plaintiff alleges that he has a reputation as a snitch, which makes him a

target for assaults by other inmates, he does not state why he thinks he will soon be removed

from SMU I. Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order fails to set forth specific

facts showing immediate and irreparable harm.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Motion for

Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #51.) All other matters will

remain with the Magistrate Judge.

(2) Plaintiff’s request for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #51) is denied.

(3) Defendants are directed to file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for a 

Preliminary Injunction.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01714-MHM-JRI Document 52 Filed 08/20/08 Page 2 of 2