IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02628-BNB

WORDEN BOURN, 

CHARLES GREENLEE, and 

ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GEO GROUP, INC., 

HUDSON CORR. FACILITY, 

WARDEN JOE DRIVER, 

ASSOCIATE WARDEN RON MURRAY, 

STATE OF ALASKA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, 

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SAM EDWARDS, and 

OTHERS TO BE NAMED,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND 

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the documents titled “Request TRO-65(a) Fed.

R. Civ. P. Injunctive Relief” (ECF No. 7) that Plaintiffs, Worden Bourn and Charles 

Greenlee, filed pro se with the Court on October 7, 2011, and the “Request Immediate

Injuctive [sic] Relief” (ECF No. 13) that Plaintiff, Mr. Bourn, filed pro se with the Court on

October 26, 2011. 

In the October 7 motion, Plaintiffs ask to be moved from the Hudson Correctional

Facility, where they are in protective custody, to federal protective custody. They make

the vague and conclusory allegations that they are in imminent danger of physical,

mental, and medical problems arising from lack of nutritional foods and staff training,

Case 1:11-cv-02628-LTB Document 39 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

and the failure of staff to report food problems and patterns of threats and rule violations

or to respond in a timely manner to grievances. In the October 26 motion, Mr. Bourn

makes vague allegations about the food, including that it is causing him to get sick. He

also asks for access to requests for interview and medical forms, and official action in

correcting the issues about which he complains. 

The Court must construe the motions liberally because Plaintiffs are 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 motions will be construed liberally as motion for injunctive relief and/or for a

temporary restraining order, and 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

Case 1:11-cv-02628-LTB Document 39 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

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

occurs.” Id. Because Plaintiffs are seeking a mandatory preliminary injunction that

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

listed above. See id. at 1209. 

Plaintiffs do not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits,

that they will suffer irreparable injury if no preliminary injunction is issued, that their 

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 motions for injunctive relief and/or a temporary restraining order 

will be denied. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the documents titled “Request TRO-65(a) Fed. R. Civ. P.

Injunctive Relief” (ECF No. 7) that Plaintiffs, Worden Bourn and Charles Greenlee, filed

pro se with the Court on October 7, 2011, and the “Request Immediate Injuctive [sic]

Relief” (ECF No. 13) that Plaintiff, Mr. Bourn, filed pro se with the Court on October 26,

2011, both of which the Court has treated as a motion for injunctive relief and/or for

temporary restraining order, are denied. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 19th day of January , 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK

Senior Judge, United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02628-LTB Document 39 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3