Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cranford v. McDaniel

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 4, 2017

DUKE F. CRANFORD, Plaintiff,
v.
E.K. McDANIEL, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge.

         Pending before the Court is the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF No. 28), filed by pro se Plaintiff Duke F. Cranford (“Plaintiff”).[1] 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This 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).

         Plaintiff 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. 28).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Preliminary 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(1).

         “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.” 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).

         The 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).

         “In 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)).

         “The 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 trial.” Id.

         “The 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).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff 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). Plaintiff ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.