Wonnacott v. Oregon Department of Corrections

Filing 49

ORDER: The Court DENIES plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Injunction (ECF No. 40 ). Signed on 3/15/2021 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. **4 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(David Wonnacott, Prisoner ID: 7861572) (joha)

Case 2:19-cv-00567-JR

Document 49

Filed 03/15/21

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
DAVID EDGAR WONNACOTT,
Case No. 2: 19-cv-00567-JR
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.

CPT. DAVID HEERN, et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN,J.
Plaintiff, an adult in custody at the Two Rivers Conectional Institution, brings this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cunently before the court is plaintiffs Motion for
Emergency Injunction (ECF No. 40). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES plaintiffs
Motion.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint alleges denial of medical care in violation of his
Eighth Amendment rights.' Plaintiffs Motion for Emergency Injunction requests a mandatory

1

Plaintiff also alleges additional claims for relief which are not at issue in his Motion for
Emergency Injunction.
1-ORDER

Case 2:19-cv-00567-JR

Document 49

Filed 03/15/21

Page 2 of 4

injunction requiring defendants to provide plaintiff with aides to assist him and to provide plaintiff
corrective surgery. Other than a reference in the Second Amended Complaint to a lower-leg surgery
to remove hardware which was not successful, plaintiff does not submit any evidence providing a
basis for his request for either the assistance of aides or corrective surgery.
Defendants contend plaintiff is not entitled to the preliminary injunctive relief sought because
plaintiff filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in state court seeking the same relief. 2 Defendants
argue this court should not re-examine issues already pending before the state court, and should
instead defer to the state comi and deny injunctive relief.

LEGAL STANDARDS
A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear
showing that the defendant is entitled to such relief." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S.
7, 22 (2008). To establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff generally is required
to demonstrate "that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable haim
in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest." Id. at 20. "The elements of [this] test are balanced, so that a
stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another. For example, a stronger
showing of irreparable harm to plaintiff might offset a lesser showing oflikelihood of success on the
merits." Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).
In the alternative, the Ninth Circuit recognizes that '"serious questions going to the merits'
and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction,
assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met." Id. at 1132. Thus, a court may

2

Wonnacott v. Blewett, Umatilla County Circuit Court Case No. 20CV41849.

2-0RDER

Case 2:19-cv-00567-JR

Document 49

Filed 03/15/21

Page 3 of 4

enter a preliminary injunction "if there is a likelihood of in-eparable injury to plaintiff; there are
serious questions going to the merits; the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of the plaintiff;
and the injunction is in the public interest." M.R. v. Dreyfus, 697 F.3d 706, 725 (9th Cir. 2012)
(citing Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1132).
Courts apply a more exacting standard when the moving party seeks a mandatory, as opposed
to a prohibitory, preliminary injunction. See Martin v. lnt'l Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670,675 (9th
Cir. 1984) ("In cases such as the one before us in which a party seeks mandatory preliminary relief
that goes well beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, courts should be extremely cautious
about issuing a preliminary injunction") (citing Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1114 (9th
Cir. 1980)). Mandatory injunctive relief is disfavored, and should be denied at the preliminary
injunction stage unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party. Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal.,
13 F.3d 1313, 1320 (9th Cir. 1994).
Finally, where an individual in custody seeks a preliminaiy injunction or temporary
restraining order with respect to prison conditions, such relief, if granted, "must be nan-owly drawn,
extend no further than necessary to con-ect the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and
be the least intrnsive means necessary to conect that haim." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

DISCUSSION
As noted, other than the brief allegation contained in his Second Amended Complaint,
plaintiff submits no evidence supporting his claim for a mandatory injunction requiring defendants
to provide plaintiff with aides to assist him and to provide plaintiff conective surge1y. In the absence
of any such evidence, plaintiff cannot establish 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

3 -ORDER

Case 2:19-cv-00567-JR

Document 49

Filed 03/15/21

Page 4 of 4

favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest. Much less has plaintiff established facts and law
clearly favoring him so as to warrant mandatory injunctive relief. See Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520
U.S. 968, 972 (1997) ("a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that
should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion")
(quotations and citations omitted, emphasis in original). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion must be
denied. Because plaintiff has not satisfied his burden, the court declines to consider whether the
pending Umatilla County state habeas corpus action precludes plaintiff from seeking relief herein.

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Injunction (ECF No.
40).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this ~ M a r c h , 2021.

United States Distnct Judge

4-ORDER