Marcus v. State of Oregon et al

Filing 28

OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction (doc. 8 , 10 , 11 ) are DENIED and Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Attorney (doc. 16 ) is DENIED. See 5-page opinion & order attached. Signed on 11/25/2012 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. Copy of this opinion & order mailed to plaintiff Arin Owen Marcus on 11/27/2012. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

ARIN OWEN MARCUS,
Plaintiff,
No. 3:12-cv-01750-HZ
OPINION & ORDER
v.
STATE OF OREGON, et al.,
Defendants.
Arin Owen Marcus
10449 S.E. Cook Court, Apt. 191
Milwaukee, OR 97222
Pro Se Plaintiff

1 - OPINION & ORDER

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Now before me are three motions for preliminary injunction (“Motions”) (doc. #8, #10,
#11) filed by Arin Owen Marcus (“Plaintiff”). The Motions seek, among other things, (1) an
award of “$12,500.00 for lost wages, lost time, administrative costs and other Expenses [sic]
related to Washington County Juvenile Case #110-334”1; (2) an order precluding defendants
from “discussing this case”, requiring “the Federal Bureau of Investigations Portland Field
Office to investigate . . . Plaintiff’s claims”, issuing “[a] warrant to secure and investigate
electronic communications sent and received by the defendants in the course of Washington
County Juvenile Case No.J10-0344”, suspending “further Court Action [sic] against . . . Plaintiff
in Washington County Juvenile Court,” transferring “Juvenile Case No. J10-0344 to Multnomah
County, Oregon,” prohibiting “Multnomah County Parole and Probation Officer Scott Nielsen
from any further contact with the Department of Human Services regarding this proceeding and
Juvenile Case No. Jl0-0344”; and (3) “allowing . . . Plaintiff to assume Protective Custody [sic]
of his son Owen Riley Alexander Marcus from the State of Oregon”.
Also before me is an Amended Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Attorney for Plaintiff
(“Motion for Reconsideration”) (doc. #16) which requests that I “reconsider . . . [this Court’s
previous denial of Plaintiff’s motion for] appointment of Pro Bono [sic] representation”. Mot.
for Reconsideration, p. 1. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motions (doc. #8, #10, #11) are
DENIED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (doc. #16) is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings claims against a number of defendants, including (1) the State of Oregon

1

The complaint alleges that the “State of Oregon and its agents are petitioning to terminate
[Plaintiff’s] parental rights” over his son in “Case #110-334”. Compl., p. 2.
2 - OPINION & ORDER

Department of Human Services Child Welfare Section; (2) Michele Aragon, Molly Taylor,
Trisha Hartfeld, and Jason Trombley (alleged employees of the State of Oregon Department of
Human Services); (3) the Oregon Department of Justice Child Advocacy Section, and (4) Marcia
Lance-Bumb (an alleged employee of the Oregon Department of Justice) (collectively,
“Defendants”). Compl., pp. 3-4. Plaintiff alleges Defendants “denied [him] Due Process [sic]
when applying the Law [sic] for deceptive and illegal purposes” and that “the intentional
deprivation of [his] rights resulted in Loss of Liberty, Loss of Property, and Loss of Rights
[sic].” Id., p. 10.
On September 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel
and on October 22, 2012, I issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff subsequently
filed the motions currently pending before me.
STANDARDS
I. Motion for Preliminary Injunction
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter
v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). A preliminary injunction “should not
be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v.
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (emphasis in original and citation omitted). “A plaintiff
seeking a preliminary 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 the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.
The Ninth Circuit has “glossed that standard by adding that there is a sliding scale approach
which allows a plaintiff to obtain an injunction where he has only shown serious questions going
to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff . . . so long as the

3 - OPINION & ORDER

plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the
public interest.” Developmental Serv. Network v. Douglas, 666 F.3d 540, 544 (9th Cir. 2011)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
II. Motion for Reconsideration
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) “permits a district court to
reconsider and amend a previous order”. Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877,
890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The rule, however, “offers an
extraordinary remedy . . . to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of
judicial resources.” Id. “Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration should not be granted,
absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered
evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389
Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
“Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a showing of
exceptional circumstances.” Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.
1994) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Under Rule 60, a court may grant reconsideration
based on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered
evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s decision; (3)
fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6)
any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
///
///
///

4 - OPINION & ORDER

DISCUSSION
I. Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff does not specifically argue, let alone make a sufficient showing, that he has
satisfied any of the four factors required for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Motions are denied.
II. Motion for Reconsideration
As stated above, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s October 22, 2012, order
denying his motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. Plaintiff does not articulate whether he
brings the Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 59 or 60. Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s mere
disagreement with this Court’s October 22, 2012, order does not provide a sufficient basis to
grant the Motion for Reconsideration. In addition, Plaintiff’s arguments, including that this is an
“unfairly balanced legal match” and that he “lacks the necessary knowledge” of an attorney are
insufficient to grant his motion. Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Reconsideration, pp. 1-2. Simply
stated, Plaintiff provides no persuasive argument as to why the extraordinary relief he seeks is
warranted under the circumstances here. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons above, Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction (doc. #8, #10,
#11) are DENIED and Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Attorney (doc. #16) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this _____ day of __________, 2012.
___________________________
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge

5 - OPINION & ORDER