Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01874/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01874-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 

SVK 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Hearman Lee Newton, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Phoenix, et al., 

 Defendants. 

No. CV 13-1874-PHX-DGC (MEA) 

ORDER 

 

 Plaintiff Hearman Lee Newton filed this pro se civil rights action claiming 

excessive force in the course of his arrest. (Doc. 1.) On May 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

Motion for a Preliminary Injunction that seeks no specific relief. (Doc. 20.) On the same 

day, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate’s Judge’s Order denying 

appointment of counsel. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff also filed Objections to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation now pending before this Court. (Doc. 22; ref. Doc. 

18.) Defendant opposes the Motion for a Preliminary injunction. (Doc. 23.) The Court 

will deny the Motion for a Preliminary injunction. 

 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 

Case 2:13-cv-01874-SPL-MEA Document 26 Filed 06/10/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

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, 20 (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). 

 Plaintiff claims that he is going to serve prison time at the Arizona Department of 

Corrections (ADC) and that there are no law libraries at ADC where he can research 

issues and litigate his case. (Doc. 20 at 2.) As Defendant observes, it is unclear what 

Plaintiff is seeking. If he is seeking a stay of his transfer, Defendant notes that neither the 

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office nor ADC are parties here and cannot be enjoined in 

this lawsuit. (Doc. 23 at 2, citing Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 

U.S. 100, 110 (1969) (“one is not bound by a judgment in personam resulting from 

litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a 

party by service of process”).) Defendant Officer Myers does not have custody of 

Plaintiff and has no control over the Fourth Avenue Jail or ADC. (Id.) 

 To the extent that the Court can interpret Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary 

Injunction as one related to the Motion for Reconsideration and denial of counsel, it will 

be denied. Plaintiff is speculating that ADC law libraries are inadequate for the purposes 

of his litigation. Mere “[s]peculative injury does not constitute irreparable harm 

sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction.” Caribbean Marine Services Co., 

Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F. 2d 668, 674-675 (9th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added). To meet the 

“irreparable harm” requirement, a plaintiff must do more than merely allege imminent 

harm; he must demonstrate it. Id. at 674. Plaintiff fails to establish that he will be 

irreparably harmed by failure to immediately appoint counsel. The Court notes that the 

Motion to Dismiss is fully briefed and that Plaintiff has already filed his objections to the 

pending Report and Recommendation. (Docs. 8, 11, 15, 22.) The Motion for 

Reconsideration will be ruled on in due course. 

Case 2:13-cv-01874-SPL-MEA Document 26 Filed 06/10/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

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

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 20) and the Motion is denied. 

 Dated this 10th day of June, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01874-SPL-MEA Document 26 Filed 06/10/14 Page 3 of 3