1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 CHRISTOPHER JONES, Case No. 3:23-cv-00024-ART-CLB 3 Plaintiff, ORDER 4 v.

5 NURSE HUNT, et al.,

6 Defendants.

7 DISCUSSION 8 On March 23, 2023, the Court entered a screening order permitting 9 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical 10 needs proceed against Defendants Dr. Hicks and Nurse Hunt. (ECF No. 4 at 6). 11 The Court stayed the case for 90 days and referred the case to the Inmate Early 12 Mediation Program. (Id. at 7). 13 A few days before the Court entered its screening order, Plaintiff filed a 14 motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3) and a day after the Court entered 15 its screening order, Plaintiff submitted a motion for temporary restraining order 16 (ECF No. 7). The motions seek injunctive relief to prevent prison officials from 17 retaliation, harassment, non-treatment of injury or pain by medical personnel, 18 and no “secluded legal aid.” (ECF No. 3 at 3; ECF No. 7 at 3). 19 Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary 20 remedy, never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555

(2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish 22 that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable 23 harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 24 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. 25 v. City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 26 U.S. at 20). Furthermore, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 27 preliminary injunctive relief must be “narrowly drawn,” must “extend no further 28 1 than necessary to correct the harm,” and must be “the least intrusive means 2 necessary to correct the harm.”

(a)(2). “A court’s equitable power 3 lies only over the merits of the case or controversy before it. When a plaintiff seeks 4 injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not 5 have the authority to issue an injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. 6 Queen's Med. Ctr.,

(9th Cir. 2015). 7 The Court denies the motions for injunctive relief without prejudice. 8 Plaintiff’s motions are vague because he seems to generally request that prison 9 officials treat him when he is injured or in pain, not to retaliate against him, and 10 not to harass him. Plaintiff has not fully established his need for preliminary 11 relief because he has not explained how he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in 12 the absence of preliminary relief. I dismiss these motions without prejudice and 13 also note that Plaintiff may be able to resolve these issues during his inmate early 14 mediation, which is in the process of being scheduled. 15 The Court further reminds Plaintiff that, pursuant to the screening order 16 (ECF No. 4 at 7), this action is stayed for 90 days to allow Plaintiff and 17 Defendant(s) an opportunity to settle their dispute before the $350.00 filing fee is 18 paid, an answer is filed, or the discovery process begins. During this 90-day stay 19 period and until the Court lifts the stay, no other pleadings or papers may be filed 20 in this case, and the parties may not engage in any discovery, nor are the parties 21 required to respond to any paper filed in violation of the stay unless specifically 22 ordered by the court to do so. 23 /// 24 25 /// 26 27 /// 28 1 || II. CONCLUSION 2 It is therefore ordered that the motions for preliminary injunction and 3 || temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 3, 7) are denied without prejudice. 4 5 DATED THIS 14+ day of April 2023. 6 7 An 1 [lostd □□ 8 ANNE R. TRAUM 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28