You're viewing Docket Item 39 from the case Jones v. Holmes et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 3:11-cv-00047-LRH-WGC Document 39 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

JASON M. JONES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
______________________________________)

DOROTHY NASH HOLMES, et al..

Plaintiff,

vs.

Defendants.

3:11-cv-00047-LRH-WGC

ORDER



Before the court is Plaintiff's motion in which he seeks to stop the NDOC from retaliating against
him as well as reconsideration of the court's order denying appointment of counsel. (Doc. # 37.)
Defendants have opposed Plaintiff's motion. (Doc. # 38.)
Motion for Reconsideration

The court will first address Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the order denying Plaintiff's
motion for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff filed his initial request for appointment of counsel along
with his complaint. (Doc. # 1-2.) The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding that Plaintiff
demonstrated an ability to articulate his claims and that the legal issues did not appear complex. (Doc.
# 19 at 2.)

Plaintiff filed a second request for appointment of counsel on April 3, 2013. (Doc. # 34.) The
court advised Plaintiff again that he does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel, but that if
extraordinary circumstances are presented, federal courts can request that an attorney represent an
indigent civil litigant. (See Doc. # 36.) Plaintiff was further advised that there had to be a showing that
he had a likelihood of success on the merits and an inability to articulate his claims in light of the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 3:11-cv-00047-LRH-WGC Document 39 Filed 06/26/13 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

complexity of the issues involved. (Id.) The court explained that Plaintiff had failed to address whether
he was likely to succeed on the merits and similarly failed to explain the complexity of his claims and
why he was unable to articulate them. (Id.) Finding that Plaintiff's claims for retaliation, deliberate
indifference to a serious medical and deliberate indifference to a serious threat to his safety under the
Eighth Amendment were neither complex nor unduly complicated and when coupled with the fact that
Plaintiff appeared to be able to sufficiently articulate his claims, the court concluded that Plaintiff could
adequately represent himself. (Id.)

Plaintiff has presented no additional information in his request for reconsideration that would
serve to change the outcome of the court's determination on this subject. Plaintiff still fails to address
whether he has a likelihood of success on the merits, and has not shown an inability to articulate his
claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for reconsideration is denied.
Retaliation

The court will now turn to Plaintiff's request that NDOC stop retaliating against him. In his
motion, Plaintiff asserts that a correctional officer has put his life in danger by trying to get him to police
the tier; that correctional officers are retaliating against him for filing grievances and for making legal
phone calls; attempting to force him back to general population; and refusing to send him his Kosher
diet. (Doc. # 37.)

While it is not entirely clear, it appears that Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order or
injunction; however, a request for such relief must be accompanied by a showing of: (1) a likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of suffering irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;
(3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). Plaintiff
has not addressed each of these factors. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion, insofar as it requests injunctive
relief, is denied without prejudice.

In addition, Plaintiff seems to seek relief that is unrelated to his claims in this action. If Plaintiff
seeks to renew his request for injunctive relief with a showing of the factors set forth in Winter, Plaintiff
must also demonstrate “[a] relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct
asserted in the complaint.” See Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994); accord Little v.

2

Case 3:11-cv-00047-LRH-WGC Document 39 Filed 06/26/13 Page 3 of 3

Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1250-51 (10th Cir. 2010); Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282, 299-300 (6th Cir.
2010); Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Trans World Airlines, 111 F.3d 14, 16 (4th Cir. 1997). Injunctive
relief is used to address issues related to the underlying violations presented in the complaint. Plaintiff
is not permitted to file a complaint in federal court and then use that action as a forum to air his unrelated
grievances. Such complaints are properly lodged using the prison grievance system and, if they remain
unresolved, by filing a new action.

In sum, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. # 37) is DENIED as set forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 26, 2013

_____________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3