The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiff Adrian Moon ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 10.) No other parties have appeared.
Plaintiff initiated this action on July 30, 2012. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, but gave leave to amend. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff has yet to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff's action has not yet been deemed to state a claim and the Court has not ordered service on the Defendants.
On July 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 4) directing unspecified individuals to release Plaintiff to a lower security custody program or to release Plaintiff on his own recognizance pending the outcome of his numerous civil cases.
II. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND APPLICATION
Plaintiff alleges his First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to kill him to prevent him from being able to exercise his First Amendment right to petition the Courts. (Id. at 4-5.) Defendants also used various other retaliatory methods to prevent Plaintiff from properly litigating his ongoing cases. (Id. at 5-14.)
Defendants also subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment. (Compl. at 14.) Plaintiff was given a false rules violation report which allowed Defendants to place him in a higher security housing area. (Id. at 15.) Defendants also retaliated by transferring Plaintiff to another prison far away from Plaintiff's family. (Id. at 17.) Defendants used cruel and unusual punishment in retaliation against Plaintiff to prevent him from pursuing his legal remedies. (Id. at 17-18.) Defendants housed Plaintiff with an inmate who was known to have violent tendencies, thereby exhibiting deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's safety. (Id. at 18-19.) Plaintiff was also told that he would be placed in the "hole", that he would be watched, and that Defendants were seeking to transfer him. (Id. at 20.) Plaintiff's appeals regarding the retaliation were rejected. (Id. at 21-23.)
Defendants denied Plaintiff access to the library and courts. (Compl. at 24.) Defendants also engaged in a retaliatory campaign against him. (Id. at 33.)
III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an "extraordinary remedy, never awarded as of right." Winter v. Natural Res. ...