IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02642-BNB

CLIFFORD D. NICHOLAS, also known as 

CLIFFORD D. NOCHOLAS (TM/TM), 

Plaintiff,

v.

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,

KIT CARSON CORRECTIONAL CENTER, and 

JOHN W. SUTHERS, Colo. Att. General, Counsel, 

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

This matter is before the Court on the motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 3

and 6) that Plaintiff, Clifford D. Nicholas, filed pro se with the Court on October 11,

2011, and November 8, 2011. Mr. Nicholas is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado

Department of Corrections who currently is incarcerated at the Kit Carson Correctional

Center in Burlington, Colorado. 

Both motions for injunctive relief are vague. In addition, the November 8 motion

is nearly unintelligible, except for intermittent references to the inadequacy of Mr.

Nicholas’s diet. 

The Court must construe the motions liberally because Mr. Nicholas 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

Case 1:11-cv-02642-LTB Document 8 Filed 11/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

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

below, the motions for injunctive relief will be denied without prejudice. 

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. Nicholas 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.

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

merits as to any potential injuries he may suffer, 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

Case 1:11-cv-02642-LTB Document 8 Filed 11/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

would not be adverse to the public interest. Therefore, the motions for injunctive relief

will be denied. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 3 and 6) that Plaintiff,

Clifford D. Nicholas, filed pro se with the Court on October 11, 2011, and November 8,

2011, are denied without prejudice. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 17th day of November , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK

Senior Judge, United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02642-LTB Document 8 Filed 11/17/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3