Orr v. Williams et al

Filing 108

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (and) Transfer of Post-Prison Supervision to Multnomah County 107 ) is denied. Signed on 3/3/09 by U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan. (sln)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RICHARD G. ORR, Plaintiff, Civil No. 07-3086-CL ORDER

v.
OREGON STATE BOARD OF

PAROLE, et a1 . ,

Defendants.

HOGAN, District Judge.

At the time of filing this action, plaintiff was an

inmate in the custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections. Plaintiff was released from custody on November 14, 2008, and

is currently on parole and post-prison supervision in Linn
County, Oregon.

Plaintiff
1

alleges

that

defendants

violated

his

- ORDER

constitutional rights by failing to release him to Multnomah County upon his release from ODOC custody, and for various allegations related to a previous parole in Douglas County. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. On March preliminary
9,

2009, plaintiff

filed

a

"motion for post -prison

injunction

(and)

transfer

of

supervision to Multnomah County" (#107).

The

relevant

factors

for

determining

whether

a

preliminary injunction should issue were canvassed by the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Odessa Union Warehouse, 833

"The factors we traditionally consider in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction in this circuit are (1) the likelihood of plaintiff's success on the merits; (2) the possibility of plaintiff's suffering irreparable injury if relief is not granted; ( 3 ) the extent to which the balance of hardships favors the respective parties; and (4) in certain cases, whether the public interest will be advanced by the provision of preliminary relief. Dollar Rent A Car of Washinston Inc. v. Travelers 774 F.2d 1371, 1374 Indemnity Com~anv, (' Cir. 1985) . To obtain a preliminary 9" injunction, the moving party must show either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of
2

- ORDER

hardships tips in its favor. Benda v. Grand Lodse of the InttlA s s l n of Machinists & Aeros~aceWorkers, 584 F.2d 308, 314-15 (gth Cir. 1978), cert. dismissed, 441 U.S. 937, 99 S.Ct. 2065, 60 L.Ed.2d 667 (1979) . These two formulations represent two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success decreases- Oakland Tribune Inc. v . Chronicle Publishins Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (gthC i r . 1985) . The moving party must show, at an irreducible minimum,
that they have a fair chance of success on the merits.
Stanlev v. University of Southern California, 13 F.3d 1313,
1319 (gth Cir. 1994), quoting Martin v. ~nternational 1 m i c 0

Committee, 740 F.2d 670, 674-675 ( g t h Cir. 1994); Committee of Cent. American Refusees v. I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 1437 (gth Cir. 1986). This is so because the probability of success on the merits is the critical standard in determining the propriety of preliminary relief. Lancor v. Lebanon Housinq

Authoritv, 760 F.2d 361, 362 (Ist Cir. 1985) . In this case, plaintiff has failed to establish the requisite fair chance of success on the merits. On February
20, 2009, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment

(#I021 .

Although plaintiff has not yet filed a response to motion, it appears
to

defendants1

be

dispositive

of

plaintiff's claims.
3

-

ORDER

Moreover, " [ T ] h e purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until

a trial on the merits can be held," and it is generally
inappropriate for a federal court at the preliminary

injunction stage to give a final judgment on the merits. University of Texas v. Camenisch , 451 U.S. 391, 395 (1981); Tanner Motor Liven, Ltd. V. Avis, Inc, 326 F.2d 804, 808 (9th
Cir. 1983). See also, Resents of Universitv of California v.

ABC, Inc., 747 F.2d 511, 514 (9th Cir. 1984)

("*

* * the

function of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status
quo ad 1item.l1) Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and

Procedure 5 2947 (1973)

("*

* * the most compelling

reason in

favor of entering a Rule 65(a) order is the need to prevent

the judicial process from being rendered futile by defendant's
actions or refusal to act").

In this case, the preliminary equitable relief that
plaintiff seeks would in essence constitute a judgment on the merits of plaintiff's inappropriate. Based Preliminary on the foregoing,
(and)

underlying claim and is therefor

plaintiff's

Motion

for

Injunction

Transfer

of

Post-Prison

Supervision to Multnomah County (#I071 is DENIED.
4

- ORDER

Plaintiff is advised that his arguments and exhibits submitted in support of his motion will be considered in response to defendants' pending motion for summary judgment
and is reminded of the notice of summary judgment standards

previously sent by the court.

IT IS SO ORDERE
DATED this

5

-

ORDER