McNair v. State of Oregon et al

Filing 31

ORDER: This Court denies Plaintiff's Motions for a Scheduling Order 24 and for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 25 & 28 . This Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time 27 . Plaintiff shal l file his Third Amended Complaint on or before May 23, 2017. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file a Third Amended Complaint, using the Court's form complaint, shall result in the dismissal of this proceeding. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 3/17/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (gw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MINISTER TIMOTHY LUTHER McNAIR,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2: 16-cv-00871-SB
ORDER

v.

STATE OF OREGON, et al.,
Defendants.

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Plaintiff, an inmate at Snake River Correctional Institution, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 23, 2017, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs Second
Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. Currently before the Court are Plaintiffs Motion for
Scheduling Order (ECF No. 24), Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction (ECF No. 25 & 28), and Motion for Extension of Time to file his Third Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 27). For the reasons set forth below, this Court denies Plaintiffs Motions for
Scheduling Order and for a Tempora1y Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and grants
Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time.
I -ORDER

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction ordering Defendants
"to cease and desist" from retaliating and harassing Plaintiff, including "the fabricating of any kind
of 'misconduct reports."' Pl.'s Mot. for TRO and Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 25) at 1-2. Additionally,
Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to (I) provide him "full access" to the prison law library and
legal materials; (2) "arrange for the plaintiff to be examined by a qualified orthopedic surgeon and
or specialist, and to obtain from that specialist or surgeon an evaluation of the plaintiffs right
shoulder and a prescription for a course of action;" and (3) "restore the plaintiff to his incentive level
III status." Pl. 's Mot. for TRO and Prelim. Inj. (ECF No. 28) at 1-3.
As noted above, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for failure to
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and lO(b). Order (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff has yet to file a Third
Amended Complaint. Plaintiff therefore has not demonstrated, at this juncture, a likelihood of
success on the merits or that there are serious questions going to the merits of his claims.
Accordingly, this Court denies Plaintiffs Motions for a Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction. See Nat'! Inst. ofFamily and Life Advocates v. Harris, 839 F.3d 823, 834
(9th Cir. 2016) (setting fo1th standards for prelimimuy injunctions).
Additionally, this Comt denies Plaintiffs Motion for a Scheduling Order to expedite the
resolution of this case. The Court will issue the appropriate scheduling order in the event that
Plaintiff files a Third Amended Complaint which survives screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2), and the Defendants are served with the Third Amended Complaint or waive service.
Finally, this Court grants Plaintiffs Motion for Extension to file his Third Amended Complaint, and
extends the deadline to May 23, 2017.
2-0RDER

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, this Court denies Plaintiffs Motions for a Scheduling Order (ECF
No. 24) and for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 25 & 28).
This Comt grants Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff shall file his
Third Amended Complaint on or before May 23, 2017.
Plaintiff is advised that failure to file a Third Amended Complaint, using the Court's form
complaint, shall result in the dismissal of this proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

fl_ day of March, 2017.

Marco A. ~zf
United States District Judge

1

3-0RDER