United States District Court, D. Arizona
DAVID G. CAMPBELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On June 16, 2015, Plaintiff Roy Pruitt, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis in Buckeye, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On June 23, 2015, he filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. On June 30, 2015, he filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 6) and a Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Doc. 7).
In a July 6, 2015 Order, the Court denied the deficient Application to Proceed and gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the filing and administrative fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On July 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 9).
The Court will grant the Motion for Extension of Time and will deny without prejudice the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order and the Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery.
I. Motion for Extension of Time
In his Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff seeks a sixty-day extension of time to comply with the Court’s Order to either pay the filing and adminstrative fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. He states that he has sent three requests to the Arizona Department of Corrections Central Office for a certified copy of his trust fund account statement, but has not yet received a response. The Court, in its discretion, will grant the Motion for Extension of Time.
II. Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order
In his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from denying him indigent legal supplies or refusing to provide him access to the legal resource library. Plaintiff contends that he has been denied indigent legal supplies on “multiple occasions” since July 2013, including an incident in June 2015. He also claims he has been denied placement in the legal resource library “in an attempt to hamper [his] ability to e-file” with the Court.
Whether to grant or deny a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is within the Court’s discretion. See Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d 1130, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1979).
1. Temporary Restraining Order
A temporary restraining order can be issued without notice
only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (emphasis added). See also LRCiv 65.1 (“Ex parte restraining orders shall only issue in accordance with Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”).
To the extent Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order without notice, he has not shown that he will suffer irreparable injury before Defendants can be heard in opposition and has not certified the “efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(B). Because the request for a temporary restraining order fails to comply with Rule 65(b)(1)(B), the Court, in its discretion, will deny that request. See LRCiv 65.1. See also American Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 321 (7th Cir. 1984) (district court abused its discretion in granting ex parte temporary restraining order “when there was no valid reason for proceeding ex parte and by disregarding the ...