United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND A HEARING [ECF NOS.31, 32,
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
prisoner-plaintiff Percy Lavae Bacon brings this civil-rights
action for events he claims occurred at Nevada's Southern
Desert Correctional Center. Bacon is before me asking for
injunctive relief arising out of his claim that prison
officials violated the ADA by denying him the ability to
obtain work credit because of his disabilities. As defendants
note in responding to these motions, the overarching problem
for Bacon is that I have seen this request before and I have
denied it. In fact, I denied essentially this same
request just days before Bacon filed his instant
motion. So I treat Bacon's request as a motion
for reconsideration under Local Rule 59-1.
is not proper here. I denied Bacon's prior request for
injunctive relief on his ADA claim because he failed to make
the required showing of irreparable harm:
Bacon cannot show that the alleged ADA violation has caused
him irreparable harm. Based on his allegations, had
defendants not violated the ADA, he would have earned 1, 400
early release credits, thus advancing his parole-eligibility
date. But these allegations are too speculative to
demonstrate irreparable harm. Bacon's claim presumes that
he: (a) would have earned all 1, 400 early release credits,
(b) was eligible for a prison job during this entire time
period (c) would have remained employed during this entire
time period and (d) that the parole board would have granted
Bacon parole at this earlier parole-board hearing. With these
numerous contingencies, Bacon cannot show irreparable harm in
the absence of preliminary relief.
current motions do not address-let alone cure-these
best, Bacon attempts to tackle the issue of irreparable harm
in his reply. I need not consider arguments raised for
the first time in reply. But even were I to consider these
contentions, Bacon has not overcome the deficiencies that I
previously identified that render his injury too speculative
to demonstrate irreparable harm. Instead, Bacon merely
reiterates that he is injured by being prevented from earning
institutional work credits, that an inmate serving 190 months
would have had the opportunity to earn 1, 900 days of work
credit, and that he would have been discharged by the parole
board had he actually earned that work credit. Bacon makes no
showing that he would have actually earned all of those
credits, was eligible for a job during this entire period,
and would have remained employed during this entire period.
Moreover, Bacon provides no support for his bare assertion
that parole would have been granted had the work credit been
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Bacon's latest motions for
injunctive relief [ECF Nos. 31, 32] are DENIED because Bacon
has not shown that appropriate grounds exist . . .for such
relief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Bacon's motion for a
hearing [ECF No. 55] IS DENIED as moot.
ECF Nos. 31, 32. Bacon also separately
asks for a hearing. ECF No. 55.
 ECF No. 37 at 6 (discussing my order
at ECF No. 30 at 9-10).
 See ECF No. 30.
 That Bacon characterizes one of his
current motions as seeking a temporary restraining order does
not alter that he is seeking reconsideration, as the standard
is the same. V'Guara Inc. v. Dec, 925 F.Supp.
2d. 1120, 1123 (D. Nev. 2013) (citing Cal. Indep. Sys.
Operator Corp. v. Reliant ...