United States District Court, D. Nevada
DUKE F. CRANFORD, Plaintiff,
E.K. McDANIEL, et al., Defendants.
M. Navarro, Chief Judge.
before the Court is the Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
(ECF No. 28), filed by pro se Plaintiff Duke F. Cranford
(“Plaintiff”). Defendants Romeo Arana, E. K.
McDaniels, and Warden B. Stroud (collectively
“Defendants”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 29).
Plaintiff did not file a reply and the time to do so has
passed. For the following reasons, the Court
DENIES Plaintiffs Motion.
case arises from events that occurred while Plaintiff was
incarcerated at High Desert State Prison
(“HDSP”). (Sec. Am. Compl. (“SAC”) at
4, ECF No. 11). Plaintiff alleges that on November 1, 2015,
he awoke with a foreign object lodged in his left eye that he
was unable to wash out. (Id.). On November 2, 2015,
Plaintiff spoke with Nurse Molly at HDSP about the object,
and she “failed to remove the object.”
(Id.). Plaintiff filed an emergency grievance, and
for several days he complained that his left eye was in pain.
(Id.). On November 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed an
informal grievance. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges he woke
up daily with his left eye sealed shut and he became fearful
of going blind. (Id.). Plaintiff asserts that he
wrote requests to Defendants to remove the object from his
eye and alleges that the object remains in his eye to this
day. (Id.). Moreover, Plaintiff contends that the
Defendants' failure to ameliorate the object in his eye
is due to “negligence, gross negligence, and deliberate
indifference that has risen to the level of cruel and unusual
punishment.” (Id.). Plaintiff seeks, inter
alia, “an ophthalmologist not affiliated with the
[Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”)] be
hired at Defendants['] expense to remove [the] object
from [Plaintiff's] eye.” (Id. at 9).
previously filed two other motions for preliminary
injunction, (ECF Nos. 2, 5), which the Court denied in its
Screening Order, (ECF No. 6). Specifically, the Court held
that “Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely
to succeed on the merits or that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.”
(Screening Order 6:8-9). In the instant Motion, Plaintiff
states “this is Plaintiff's second [sic] pro se
move for injunctive relief to prevent any additional damage
to his left eye.” (Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 1, ECF No.
injunctions and temporary restraining orders are governed by
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
provides that a “court may issue a preliminary
injunction only on notice to the adverse party.”
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.”
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S.
7, 20 (2008). Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary
remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the
plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at
22. “[C]ourts must balance the competing claims of
injury and must consider the effect on each party of the
granting or withholding of the requested relief.”
Id. at 24 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Ninth Circuit has held that “serious questions going to
the merits and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward
the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming
the other two elements of the Winter test are also
met.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v.
Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011).
deciding a motion for a preliminary injunction, the district
court ‘is not bound to decide doubtful and difficult
questions of law or disputed questions of fact.'”
Int'l Molders' & Allied Workers' Local
Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 799 F.2d 547, 551 (9th Cir.
1986) (quoting Dymo Indus., Inc. v. Tapeprinter,
Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964)).
urgency of obtaining a preliminary injunction necessitates a
prompt determination and makes it difficult to obtain
affidavits from persons who would be competent to testify at
trial.” Flynt Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Harvey,
734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1984). “The trial court
may give even inadmissible evidence some weight, when to do
so serves the purpose of preventing irreparable harm before
court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary
restraining order only if the movant gives security in an
amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and
damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully
enjoined or restrained.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c).
seeks injunctive relief “to prevent any additional
damage to his left eye.” (Mot. for Prelim. Inj.at 1,
ECF No. 28). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that if the
Court does not intervene, “there is a great possibility
Plaintiff might lose his vision in his left eye, ” and
Plaintiff asserts that “Defendants would no[t] suffer
any harm whatsoever, nor hardship, if the foreign object in
my left eye is removed.” (Id. at 1-2).