Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01527/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01527-0/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 

JDDL-K 

KAB 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Harold Glass, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

David Rothrock, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-1527-PHX-DGC (BSB) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Harold Glass, who is confined in the State Correctional InstitutionRockview in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, filed a document entitled “Emergency Restraining 

Order 42 USC 1983” (Doc. 1). 

 Motions for injunctive relief are not independent actions, but rather a means to 

seek extraordinary relief in an ongoing action that has been initiated by filing a complaint 

or other proper petition that alleges jurisdictional facts. Indeed, Rule 65 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for the granting of preliminary injunctions and 

temporary restraining orders, “was designed solely as a procedural tool to expedite the 

action and accommodate the court and the litigants” and “does not confer either subject 

matter or personal jurisdiction on the court.” Citizens Concerned for the Separation of 

Church and State v. City and County of Denver, 628 F.2d 1289, 1299 (10th Cir. 1980) 

(citation omitted). Before seeking injunctive relief, Plaintiff must first have a Complaint 

pending before the Court. See Stewart v. United States Immigration & Naturalization 

Serv., 762 F.2d 193, 198 (2d Cir. 1985) (“Only after an action has been commenced can 

Case 2:14-cv-01527-DGC--BSB Document 3 Filed 07/29/14 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 

JDDL-K 

preliminary injunctive relief be obtained.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2)); see also

Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (a party seeking 

injunctive relief must establish a relationship between the claimed injury and the conduct 

asserted in the complaint). Because there is no Complaint pending before the Court in 

this case, Plaintiff’s “Emergency Restraining Order 42 USC 1983” is not properly before 

the Court. Moreover, the “Emergency Restraining Order 42 USC 1983” contains 

frivolous allegations and has no legal basis. Accordingly, the Court will deny the 

“Emergency Restraining Order 42 USC 1983” and will direct the Clerk of Court to close 

this case. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) Plaintiff’s “Emergency Restraining Order 42 USC 1983” (Doc. 1) is 

denied. 

 (2) The Clerk of Court must close this case and enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 29th day of July, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01527-DGC--BSB Document 3 Filed 07/29/14 Page 2 of 2