IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02656-BNB

BRIAN M. GROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM CLEMENTS,

JOHN DAVIS,

ELLEN BLACKMORE,

MARY CARTER,

THOMAS FISHER,

MARY BETH KALYMER,

KERRY BARONI,

MARCIA MORTIN (aka DENISE MORTIN),

ARISTEDES ZAVARES,

STEVE M. VICALVI,

P. LASTRELL,

JOHN DOE,

JANE DOE, and

ANTHONY DeCESARO,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

This matter is before the Court on the “Petition for Temporary Injunction for

Medical/Dental Services” (Doc. # 15) that Plaintiff, Brian M. Gross, filed pro se on

January 26, 2011. In the motion, Mr. Gross requests that the “court grant him an

injunction placing his Medical and Dental care needs to be met by an independent third

parties [sic].” He argues that the named Defendants “have shown reckless disregard for

the welfare and safety of the Plaintiff, by denying the medical and dental needs that he

requires.” Mr. Gross does not provide any supporting factual allegations with regard to

Case 1:11-cv-02656-MSK-MJW Document 17 Filed 02/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

his medical and dental needs; instead, the motion is bare and conclusory.

The Court must construe the motion liberally because Mr. Gross is not

represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v.

Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be an

advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated

below, the motion will be denied. 

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show a substantial likelihood of

prevailing on the merits, that he will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues,

that the threatened injury outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may

cause the opposing party, and that the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the

public interest. See Lundgrin v. Claytor, 619 F.2d 61, 63 (10th Cir. 1980). Similarly, a

party seeking a temporary restraining order must demonstrate clearly, with specific

factual allegations, that immediate and irreparable injury will result unless a temporary

restraining order is issued. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and “the primary goal of a

preliminary injunction is to preserve the pre-trial status quo.” RoDa Drilling Co. v.

Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203, 1208 (10th Cir. 2009). Therefore, “courts should be especially

cautious when granting an injunction that requires the nonmoving party to take

affirmative action - a mandatory preliminary injunction - before a trial on the merits

occurs.” Id. Because Mr. Gross is seeking a mandatory preliminary injunction that 

seeks to alter the status quo, he must make a heightened showing of the four factors

listed above. See id. at 1209.

Case 1:11-cv-02656-MSK-MJW Document 17 Filed 02/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

Mr. Gross does not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the

merits, that he will suffer irreparable injury if no preliminary injunction is issued, that his

threatened injuries outweigh whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the

opposing party, or that a preliminary injunction would not be adverse to the public

interest. Therefore, the motion for injunctive relief will be denied. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the “Petition for Temporary Injunction for Medical/Dental

Services” (Doc. # 15) that Plaintiff, Brian M. Gross, filed pro se with the Court on

January 26, 2012, is denied.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 8th day of February , 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK

Senior Judge, United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02656-MSK-MJW Document 17 Filed 02/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3