Hurt v. Multnomah County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 10

ORDER: Plaintiff's complaint indicates a significant statute of limitation obstacle as well as pleading deficiencies. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that suggest he will be irreparably harmed if the preliminary relief he seeks is n ot granted. Lastly, plaintiff has not alleged sufficient specific facts to establish that defendants are in fact significantly interfering with the litigation of his case. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary relief 9 is denied. Signed on 4/10/2013 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (gw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
CLARENCE W. HURT III,
Plaintiff,

3:13-cv-00470-CL

v.

ORDER

MULTNOMAH COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
AIKEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff, an inmate in the Multnomah County Jail, filed
a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that inthe year
2000 he was "held past his release date.

Plaintiff further

alleges that he was "beaten, tortured and held against my free
will." Complaint ( #2) p. 4
Plaintiff

now moves

for

preliminary equitable

relief

alleging that Multnomah County Sheriff's Office personnel are
interfering

with

plaintiff's

preparation

of

this

case.

Specifically, plaintiff moves the court for an order requiring
defendants to "provide the pro-se plaintiff all rights and

1 - ORDER

privileges as an attorney," and restraining defendants "from
retaliating against the pro-se plaintiff for standing up for
his due process." (Sic) Motion of Pro Se (#9).
The

relevant

factors

for

determining

preliminary injunction should issue were

whether

a

canvassed by the

Ninth Circuit in United States v. Odessa Union Warehouse, 833
F . 2 d 1 7 2 , 1 7 4 ( 9th Ci r . 19 8 7 ) :
"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 Washington Inc. v. Travelers
Indemnity Company, 774 F.2d 1371, 1374
(9th Cir. 1985). To obtain a preliminary
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
hardships tips in its favor.
Benda v. Grand
Lodge of the Int'l Ass'n of Machinists &
Aerospace Workers, 584 F.2d 308, 314-15
(9th 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 Publishing Co.,
762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985).
The moving party must show, at an irreducible minimum,
that

they

2 - ORDER

have

a

fair

chance

of

success

on

the

merits.

Stanley v. University of Southern California,

13 F.3d 1313,

1319 (9th Cir. 1994), quoting Martin v. International Olympic
Committee, 740 F.2d 670, 674-675 (9th Cir. 1994); Committee of
Cent. American Refugees v.

I.N.S.,

795 F.2d 1434,

1437

(9th

Cir. 1986). This is so because the probability of success on
the

merits

is

the

critical

standard

propriety of preliminary relief.
Authority, 760 F.2d 361, 362

in

determining

the

Lancor v. Lebanon Housing

(Pt Cir. 1985).

In this case, plaintiff has not established the requsite
"irreducible minimum" that he has a "fair chance of success on
the merits" on the underlying claim.
Plaintiff's complaint indicates a significant statute of
limitation

obstacle

as

well

as

pleading

deficiencies.

Moreover, plaintiff is incarcerated and complaining about past
allegedly improper incarceration.

Plaintiff has not alleged

any facts that suggest he will be irreparably harmed if the
preliminary relief he seeks is not granted. Lastly, plaintiff
has not alleged sufficient specific facts to establish that
defendants

are

in

fact

significantly interfering with the

litigation of his case.
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary relief (#9) is denied.
DATED this

I0

day of

Apria:·AA~
Ann Aiken
United State District Judge

3 - ORDER