Sims v. Diaz ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DERRICK J. SIMS, Case No. 19-cv-05445-SI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 10 RALPH DIAZ, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 17 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration (Docket No. 17) of the order denying his 14 request for a preliminary injunction (Docket No. 9). Plaintiff essentially asks the court to take a 15 second look at some of the evidence he submitted in support of his request for a preliminary 16 injunction because he does not think the court looked at the evidence carefully enough. Plaintiff is 17 not entitled to relief because does not show a material difference in fact or law exists from that 18 which was presented to the court before entry of the order denying the request for preliminary 19 injunction; does not show the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after 20 the time of such order; and does not show a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts 21 which were presented to the court before such interlocutory order. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). Instead, 22 his motion shows nothing more than a disagreement with the court’s conclusion that he was not 23 entitled to interim relief. 24 Plaintiff claims in this action that he was under threat from some other inmates in a security 25 threat group and was attacked three times, with the most recent attack occurring more than a year 26 before he filed this action. Prison officials have different options as to how they will protect an 27 inmate in danger of attack, so it does not necessarily follow that a threat plus an attack necessarily 1 safety. Here, the fact that it has now been more than eighteen months since the most recent attack 2 || on plaintiff suggests that prison officials have found a way to protect plaintiff in his current facility 3 and are not currently acting with deliberate indifference to his safety. He has not shown his 4 entitlement to interim relief. See Caribbean Marine Services Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 5 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A plaintiff must do more than merely allege imminent harm sufficient to 6 || establish standing; a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to 7 || preliminary injunctive relief.”) The motion for reconsideration of the denial of the request for a 8 || preliminary injunction is DENIED. Docket No. 17. No further motions for reconsideration of the 9 || order denying the request for preliminary injunction or this order may be filed. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 |] Dated: March 3, 2020 Site WU tee a SUSAN ILLSTON 13 United States District Judge © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28