United States District Court, D. Arizona
MICHAEL T. LIBURDI, UNITED SLATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Edward Lee Jones, Sr., who is currently confined in the
Arizona State Prison Complex-Eyman, filed a pro se civil
rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before
the Court is a Motion entitled “Plaintiff's
Emergency Motions for Injunction against the Arizona
Department of Corrections officials/staff at SMU-1”
(Doc. 24), which Plaintiff filed in four pending
Court will deny the Motion filed in this action.
screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court
determined that Plaintiff stated a First Amendment
retaliation claim against Defendant Grievance Coordinator
Rydgren based on Plaintiff's allegation that, in 2018,
Rydgren charged Plaintiff with a disciplinary infraction in
retaliation for Plaintiff filing grievances. (Doc. 9 at 11.)
The Court dismissed the remaining claims and Defendants.
(See generally, id.)
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
Rydgren filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint on July
3, 2019. On October 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint without first seeking leave of the Court. Pursuant
to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
may amend his Complaint only with the opposing party's
written consent or with the Court's leave. Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a). Moreover, this Court's local rule requires a party
seeking leave to amend a complaint to file a motion to amend
the complaint and to attach a copy of the proposed amended
pleading “which must indicate in what respect it
differs from the pleading which it amends, by bracketing or
striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the
text to be added.” LRCiv 15.1. Because Plaintiff did
not properly comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
or this Court's local rules prior to filing an Amended
Complaint, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to
strike the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 20.).
Plaintiff's original Complaint (Doc. 10) remains the
operative pleading in this action.
Motion for Injunctive Relief
“Emergency Motions for Injunction, ” Plaintiff
requests an order from the Court ordering Sergeant Harris to
“provide all of Plaintiff's legal boxes/legal
books, for ADC to be directed not to take Plaintiff's
legal boxes/legal books, . . . [and] for SMU1 officials to
provide Plaintiff with indigent hygiene and access to proper
forms to exhaust the grievance process.” (Doc. 24 at
complains that between July 23, 2019 and November 7, 2019,
“staff” at Rynning unit provided him
“indigent” supplies only four times.
(Id.at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that “in the last
12 months, ” Sergeant Harris and his subordinates have
lost or wrongfully destroyed Plaintiff's property.
(Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff asserts that despite
multiple requests, staff will not return his legal property
and as a result he has been unable to respond to motions
filed in CV 18-4872 and CV 18-1972. (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff states that “[p]risoners are being hindered
from the grievance process..” (Id. at 5.) . .
preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic
remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by
a clear showing, carries the burden of
persuasion.'” Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d
1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v.
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam);
see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted) (“[a]
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right”). A plaintiff seeking a
preliminary injunction must show that (1) he is likely to
succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable
harm without an injunction, (3) the balance of equities tips
in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public
interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “But if a
plaintiff can only show that there are ‘serious
questions going to the merits'-a lesser showing than
likelihood of success on the merits-then a preliminary
injunction may still issue if the ‘balance of hardships
tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor,' and the other
two Winter factors are satisfied.” Shell
Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291
(9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v.
Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). Under
this serious questions variant of the Winter test,
“[t]he elements . . . must be balanced, so that a
stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing
of another.” Lopez, 680 F.3d at 1072.
of which standard applies, the movant “has the burden
of proof on each element of the test.” See Envtl.
Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F.Supp.2d 1016,
1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). Further, there is a heightened burden
where a plaintiff seeks a mandatory preliminary injunction,
which should not be granted “unless the facts and law
clearly favor the plaintiff.” Comm. of Cent. Am.
Refugees v. INS, 795 F.2d 1434, 1441 (9th Cir. 1986)
Prison Litigation Reform Act imposes additional requirements
on prisoner litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief
against prison officials and requires that any injunctive
relief be narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means
necessary to correct the harm. 18 U.S.C. § ...