Jackson v. Yeager et al

Filing 27

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (# 17 ) and Emergency Request for Judicial Intervention (# 22 ) are denied. Signed on 11/27/2018 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (joha) (Copy Mailed to Plaintiff.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JAMES DONALD JACKSON,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00816-MO
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
CO YEAGER, et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, District Judge.
This prisoner civil rights case comes before the Court on
Plaintiff's

Motion

for

Preliminary

Injunction

Emergency Request for Judicial Intervention (#22).
for

Preliminary

Injunction,

Department of Corrections

Plaintiff

("ODOC")

claims

order

his

transfer

from

his

In his Motion
that

Oregon

the

Two

He asks the Court

Rivers

Correctional

Institution to the Oregon State Correctional Institution.

1 - ORDER

and

staff members are forcing him

to engage in altercations with other inmates.
to

(#17)

In

his

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.
STANDARDS

plaintiff

"A

seeking

preliminary

a

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

Resources

Defense

plaintiff

may

the

public

Council,

also

qualify

interest."
555

Inc.,

for

a

U.S.

Winter

7,

preliminary

20

v.

Natural

(2008).

injunction

A
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

-Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,

35

are

also

met.

632 F. 3d 1127. 1134-

(9 th 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.

1994) .

Ill
Ill
2 - ORDER

of S.

Cal.,

13

F.3d 1313,

1319-20

(9th Cir.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed this case alleging that he was attacked by
fellow inmate Wilkerson in a physical altercation on April 21,
2017.

In

his

disciplined
Wilkerson.
however,
protect

Complaint,

him
In

as

his

Plaintiff
issues

that

a

he

complains

result

request

for

focuses
are

of

officials

altercation

the

prison

involving

preliminary

on

not

that

Eighth

at

injunctive

Amendment

issue

in

the

relief,

failure

Complaint,

to
and

pertain to inmates not mentioned in the operative pleading.

In

this

of

regard,

Plaintiff

cannot

demonstrate

a

likelihood

success on the merits of claims that are not currently before
the Court.
Similarly,

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

success on the merits of such a claim.
preliminary
Architects,

1155

injunctive
Inc.

v.

( 9th Cir. 2006)

relief

Concordia

is
Homes

not

has

no

likelihood

For these reasons alone,
appropriate.

of Nevada,

434

See

LGS

F.3d 1150,

(requiring at least some chance of success

on the merits to justify a preliminary injunction).

3 - ORDER

of

In addition,

although Plaintiff claims to face irreparable

injury because ODOC staff members have set him up for physical
confrontations
conflicts,

with

the

inmates

record

whom they
this

in

know
does

case

he

has

not

preexisting

support

this

contention. ODOC maintains an information system to identify and
monitor inmates who pose a threat to each other.
Lance Albert,
so as

to

shared

p.

5. Both staff and inmates can report conflicts

achieve

among

Declaration of

a

comprehensive

inmates.

None

Id.

database,
of

the

and

names

are

not

inmates

with

whom

he

claims to have preexisting conflicts known to ODOC staff appear
in the Offender Management

System.

In this

Id.

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.
the

same

reason,

Plaintiff

cannot

establish

a

likelihood

For
of

irreparable injury.
Finally,

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

request

issue
for

in

his

preliminary

4 - ORDER

Complaint.
injunctive

Accordingly,
relief

is

Plaintiff's
particularly

disfavored.
Co.,

571

reasons,

Marlyn

F.3d

Nutraceuticals,

873,

879

(9th

Inc

Cir.

v.

Mucas

2009).

For

Pharma

all

Gmbh

of

&

these

Plaintiff's requests for preliminary injunctive relief

are denied.
CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's

Motion

for

Preliminary

Injunction

(#17)

and

Emergency Request for Judicial Intervention (#22) are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ~ a y of November, 2018.

sman
District Judge

5 - ORDER