United States District Court, D. Oregon
MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge
an inmate at Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCI),
brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 45). For the reasons set
forth below, this Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion.
plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish
that (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his
favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,
20 (2008); Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740
(9th Cir. 2015); Ass 'n des Eleveurs de Canards et
d'Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937, 944 (9th
Cir. 2013). In the Ninth Circuit, a plaintiff also may obtain
injunctive relief if there are serious questions going to the
merits, the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor,
and the remaining two Winter factors are satisfied.
A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Res. Clinic v.
Becerra, No. 15-17517, 2018 WL 4090700, at *1 (9th Cir.
2018). If a plaintiff fails to demonstrate a likelihood of
success on the merits or serious questions going to the
merits, the court need not address the remaining factors.
Garcia, 786 F.3d at 740. Where, as here, the
plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction which goes beyond
maintaining the status quo, he must demonstrate that
the facts and law clearly favor an injunction. Id.;
see also Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. King Cty.,
796 F.3d 1165, 1173 (9th Cir. 2015) (mandatory injunctions
are disfavored and will not be entered in doubtful cases).
plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must
demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the injury claimed in
the motion and the conduct asserted in the underlying
complaint. Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's
Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). "The
relationship ... is sufficiently strong where the preliminary
injunction would grant relief of the same character as that
which may be granted finally." Id. (quotation
marks omitted). "Absent that relationship or nexus, the
district court lacks authority to grant the relief
requested." Id.; see Saddiq v. Ryan,
703 Fed.Appx. 570, 572 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming denial of
preliminary injunction because the prisoner did not establish
a nexus between the claims of retaliation in his motion and
the claims set forth in his complaint).
Plaintiffs original Complaint, he alleges that Oregon State
Penitentiary (OSP) officials violated his constitutional
rights by placing him in temporary disciplinary segregation
on February 13, 2017, filing false misconduct charges against
him for smuggling drugs into OSP, denying him due process at
a related disciplinary hearing, and confining him in various
levels of segregation. Pl.'s Compl. (ECF No. 2) at 2-19.
Plaintiffs proposed Supplemental Complaint, in contrast, he
challenges different disciplinary action. Plaintiff alleges
that SRCI officials violated his constitutional rights by
transferring him to administrative segregation on June 1,
2018, pending an investigation into charges that his cellmate
tested positive for Methamphetamine. Pl.'s Mot. for Leave
to File Suppl. Compl. (ECF No. 49) at 2, 11, 14-29. Plaintiff
alleges that the SRCI officials subsequently denied him due
process at a September 2018 misconduct proceeding in which he
was found guilty of possessing a controlled substance
contained in a bottle in his cell. Id. at 3, 32-44.
The Court recently denied Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File
a Supplemental Complaint.
Court denies Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction
because the requested injunctive relief does not relate to
the allegations of Plaintiff s original Complaint. Instead,
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against the SRCI officials
named as Defendants in his proposed Supplemental Complaint,
and the relief relates to disciplinary action taken against
him for possessing the controlled substance found in his
cell. See Pl.'s Mot. for Prel. Inj. at 2-4.
Because Plaintiffs Supplemental Complaint is not properly
before the Court, injunctive relief is not warranted.
Further, Plaintiff has made no attempt to demonstrate a
likelihood of success on the merits of the claims raised in
on the foregoing, this Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for a