United States District Court, D. Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, United Stated District Judge.
prisoner civil rights case comes before the Court on
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#17) and
his Emergency Request for Judicial Intervention (#22) . In
his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff claims that
Oregon -Department of Corrections ("ODOC") staff
members are forcing him to engage in altercations with other
inmates. He asks the Court to order his transfer from the Two
Rivers Correctional Institution to the Oregon State
request seeking emergency judicial intervention, Plaintiff
claims that he has been the victim of a retaliatory cell
search and asks the Court to intervene on that issue.
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."
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A plaintiff may also qualify for a
preliminary injunction by showing that there are serious
questions going to the merits of his claim and that the
balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor, so long as
the other Winter factors are also met. Alliance
for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127. 1134-35
(9th Cir. 2011). A request for a mandatory
injunction seeking relief well beyond the status quo is
disfavored and shall not be granted unless the facts and law
clearly favor the moving party. Stanley v. Univ. of S.
Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1319-20 (9th Cir. 1994).
filed this case alleging that he was attacked by fellow
inmate Wilkerson in a physical altercation on April 21, 2017.
In his Complaint, he complains that prison officials
disciplined him as a result of the altercation involving
Wilkerson. In his request for preliminary injunctive relief,
however, Plaintiff focuses on Eighth Amendment failure to
protect issues that are not at issue in the Complaint, and
pertain to inmates not mentioned in the operative pleading.
In this regard, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a likelihood of
success on the merits of claims that are not currently before
Plaintiff's claim of a retaliatory cell search in his
Emergency Request for Judicial Relief is not at issue in his
Complaint and involves a correctional officer who is not a
party to this action. As a result, he has no likelihood of
success on the merits of such a claim. For these reasons
alone, preliminary injunctive relief is not appropriate. See
LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Homes of
Nevada, 434 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2006) (requiring
at least some chance of success on the merits to justify a
addition, although Plaintiff claims to face irreparable
injury because ODOC staff members have set him up for
physical confrontations with inmates whom they know he has
preexisting conflicts, the record in this case does not
support this contention. ODOC maintains an information system
to identify and monitor inmates who pose a threat to each
other. Declaration of Lance Albert, p. 5. Both staff and
inmates can report conflicts so as to achieve a comprehensive
database, and names are not shared among inmates.
Id. None of the inmates with whom he claims to have
preexisting conflicts known to ODOC staff appear in the
Offender Management System. Id. In this respect,
where staff are not aware of the conflicts Plaintiff purports
to have, it is difficult to see how staff are purposely
placing Plaintiff in proximity to inmates with whom he has
active conflicts. For the same reason, Plaintiff cannot
establish a likelihood of irreparable injury.
Plaintiff's requests for preliminary injunctive relief
seek to change the relative positions of the parties, not
preserve them. This is especially true where the relief he
seeks and the individuals he identifies are generally
dissimilar from those at issue in his Complaint. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief is
particularly disfavored. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc v.
Mucas Pharma Gmbh & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir.
2009). For all of these reasons, Plaintiff's requests for
preliminary injunctive relief are denied.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#17) and Emergency Request