United States District Court, D. Nevada
has filed identical motions for temporary restraining order
("TRO") and preliminary injunction and a motion for
Rule 11 relief. (ECF No. 4, 5, 7).
motions for TRO/preliminary injunction, Plaintiff seeks an
order directing Warden Baca to permit Plaintiff to receive
"styro-trays" in his cell. (ECF No. 4 at 11.)
Plaintiff alleges the following: On October 14, 2015, Dr.
Johns ordered Plaintiff a special medical diet because
Plaintiff suffered from a severe bowel disorder and no longer
had a large intestine. (ECF No. 4-1 at 17). Due to his bowel
disorder, Plaintiff had difficulty holding his bowel
movements. (Id.) There were no bathroom facilities
in the dining hall. (Id.) Dr. Johns's medical
order directed Plaintiff to have a high protein diet and the
ability to take his meals back to his housing unit in order
to permit him to eat smaller meals over the course of the
day. (Id.) Dr. Aranas approved the medical order on
October 21, 2015. (Id. at 18).
8, 2017, prison officials hung a memo in the dining hall
which stated that "all diet orders for styros have been
discontinued" and stated that they had to be
"renewed with the warden's approval within 72
hours." (ECF No. 4 at 5; ECF No. 4-1 at 18). The next
day, prison officials hung a memo in the dining hall which
stated, "effective immediately there will be no
styrofoam trays leaving the culinary per Warden Baca."
(ECF No. 4-1 at 18). Since that time, Plaintiff has not been
able to receive his medical diet. (Id.) Plaintiff
must now eat in the dining hall. (Id.) However,
Plaintiff cannot finish a full meal without having to leave
and use a toilet. (Id.) Once Plaintiff leaves the
dining hall, prison officials will not permit him to return.
relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an
"extraordinary remedy, never awarded as of right."
Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7,
24 (2008). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction
must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits,
that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in
his favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest." Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of
Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). Furthermore, under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"),
preliminary injunctive relief must be "narrowly drawn,
" must "extend no further than necessary to correct
the harm, " and must be "the least intrusive means
necessary to correct the harm." 18 U.S.C. §
Court finds that Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to
warrant a response from Defendants. Based on the screening
order, Plaintiff has stated several colorable indifference to
serious medical needs claims and equal protection claims
related to his medical issues. Based on the allegations,
Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm with respect
to adequate nutrition if he is unable to return to the dining
hall once he leaves to use the toilet. Based on the
allegations, Plaintiff must constantly use the restroom due
to his bowel disorder. As such, the Court orders the Attorney
General's Office to advise the Court within seven (7)
days from the date of the entry of this order whether it will
enter a limited notice of appearance on behalf of Defendants.
Based on the nature of the allegations, Defendants shall also
have seven (7) days from the date of this order to file their
response to Plaintiffs motion for TRO/preliminary
injunction. In their response, Defendants should
address the order prohibiting styro trays, the reasons for
denying the practice, and any alternatives or options for
Plaintiff absent a styro tray.
foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Attorney
General's Office must advise the Court within seven (7)
days from the date of entry of this order whether it can
accept service of process for the named Defendants and enter
a limited appearance for the purpose of responding to
Plaintiffs motions for preliminary injunction/TRO.
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants must file a response to
Plaintiffs motion for TRO/preliminary injunction (ECF No. 4,
5) within seven (7) days from the date of entry of this
order. If Plaintiff chooses to file a reply, he will file
such a reply within ten (10) days from the date of entry of
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for Rule 11 relief (ECF No.
7) is denied.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall
electronically serve a copy of this order and a copy of
Plaintiffs motions for TRO/preliminary injunction (ECF No. 4,
5) on the Office of the Attorney General of the State of
Nevada, attention Kat Howe.
 The Court denies Plaintiffs motion for
Rule 11 relief based on the fact that Defendants have not yet
filed a response to his motions for TRO/preliminary