United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
the Court is Plaintiff Ronnie Edward’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and Notice of Appeal. ECF No. 1. The
Court construes the motion as one for an ex parte
temporary restraining order based on a claim of deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need against Nevada
Department of Corrections as well as the warden, associate
wardens, medical director, and medical staff at High Desert
State Prison (“HDSP”). For the reasons stated
below, the Court grants the motion Plaintiff’s Motion.
filed his Motion for Preliminary Injunction on May 8, 2019.
ECF No. 1. But Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee to
initiate a civil matter or an application to proceed in
forma pauperis. See docket. No. screening order
has been issued. See Id. Defendants have
not had an opportunity to respond.
Court makes the following findings based upon the allegations
in the Motion.
underwent a corneal transplant on March 14, 2017. In
conjunction with the surgery, Plaintiff’s treating
physician prescribed specific medications, including
prescription eye drops. Medical staff at HDSP, the facility
at which Plaintiff is incarcerated, have failed to timely
refill Plaintiff’s prescriptions despite
Plaintiff’s repeated submissions of medical kites and
Plaintiff visited his treating physician on November 30,
2018. The physician informed Plaintiff that his eye was
rejecting the transplant. The physician then questioned if
Plaintiff had been complaint with his medications. When
Plaintiff explained that HDSP staff failed to timely refill
his prescriptions and caused him to go without his
medications for weeks at a time, the physician wrote an order
instructing HDSP staff to provide six refills to Plaintiff
and directing Plaintiff to increase the number of eye drops
used daily. HDSP staff continued to delay Plaintiff’s
prescription refills, resulting in Plaintiff going without
his eye drops for over one month.
continues to submit kites and grievances and attaches several
medical kites to confirm his complaints. He also details the
pain and vision loss resulting from not having his medication
in a timely fashion.
temporary restraining order (“TRO”) may be issued
without notice to the adverse party only if the moving party:
(1) provides a sworn statement clearly demonstrating
“that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage
will result to the movant before the adverse party can be
heard in opposition,” and (2) sets forth the efforts
made to notify the opposing party and why notice should not
be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). TROs issued without
notice “are no doubt necessary in certain
circumstances, but under federal law they should be
restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving
the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long
as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.”
Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 452 F.3d
1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Granny Goose Foods,
Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)).
The analysis for a temporary restraining order is
“substantially identical” to that of a
preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co, Inc.
v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7
(9th Cir. 2001).
preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that
may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff
is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). To obtain a
preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish four
elements: “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits,
(2) that the plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable harm in
the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of
equities tips in its favor, and (4) that the public interest
favors an injunction.” Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD
Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc., 758 F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th
Cir. 2014), as amended (Mar. 11, 2014) (citing
Winter, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). A preliminary
injunction may also issue under the “serious
questions” test. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v.
Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirming
the continued viability of this doctrine
post-Winter). According to this test, a plaintiff
can obtain a preliminary injunction by demonstrating
“that serious questions going to the merits were raised
and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the
plaintiff’s favor,” in addition to the other
Winter elements. Id. at 1134-35 (citation