Order Denying Motions for Injunctive Relief

[ECF Nos. 21, 22]

JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.

Pro se plaintiff George Arthur has moved for temporary and permanent injunctive relief.1 He seeks an injunction preventing prison officials from housing him with protective-custody inmates, inmates of different races, sex offenders, and homosexuals.2He also wishes to be transferred to a state prison in Denver, Colorado.3

Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an "extraordinary remedy, never awarded as of right."4"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest."5And, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, preliminary injunctive relief must be "narrowly drawn," must "extend no further than necessary to correct the harm," and must be "the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm."6

I have reviewed both motions and find that Arthur fails to allege that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. I recognize that Arthur has allegedly sought protection in prison in the past due to being labeled a "snitch."7I also acknowledge that Arthur has had a cell mate whom he alleges sexually harassed him in 2017 and that Arthur has a "fear of being raped, sexually assaulted, after being sexually harassed, by the inmates" that prison officials forced him to cell with.8But Arthur has previously alleged that prison officials transferred him to another cell for his safety and security.9So it does not appear that Arthur is actually in danger of suffering irreparable harm, and he certainly has alleged any facts to demonstrate that he is. His conclusory statements are insufficient to demonstrate imminence.

Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions for injunctive relief [ECF Nos. 21, 22] are DENIED.