Bonneau v. Alfano et al

Filing 14

ORDER: The court DENIES Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction 3 . IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 1/16/2014 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (gw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
RYAN BONNEAU,
Case No. 3:13-cv-02110-PA
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.

BARBARA ALFANO, et a1.,
Defendants.
PANNER, Judge.
Plaintiff,

an

inmate

rights action prose.

at

FDC

Sheridan,

brings

this. civil

Currently before the court is plaintiff's

"Emergency Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction" (#3)

("Motion").

For the reasons that follow, the court DENIES plaintiff's Motion.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges defendant
deputy

United

States

Marshal,

violated

Barbara Alfano,
plaintiff's

a

Fourth

Amendment rights when she seized money and property in plaintiff's
possession in the

1 - ORDER -

course of arresting plaintiff pursuant to a

warrant.

Plaintiff

also

alleges

Alfano

published

a

flyer

concerning plaintiff which contained inaccurate information about
his

criminal

history.

In

his

Motion,

articulate the emergency relief sought.
in support of the motion,

however,

plaintiff

does

not

In his memorandum filed

plaintiff indicates he seeks

the return of his currency and property and an order enjoining
Alfano from continuing to disseminate "incorrect,

false,

and/or

inflammatory information" regarding plaintiff.
LEGAL STANDARDS

A temporary restraining order is available when the applicant
may

suffer

application
Wright,

irreparable
for

a

Arthur R.

injury

before

preliminary

the

injunction.

Miller & Mary Kay Kane,

court

can

11A

hear

Charles

the
Alan

Federal Practice and

Procedure§ 2951 (3d. 1998); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).

Requests

for temporary restraining orders are governed by the same general
standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
See New Motor Vehicle Bd.

v.

Orrin W.

Fox Co.,

434 U.S.

1345,

1347, n. 2 (1977); Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States
Dist. Court,
A

650 F.2d 1004, 1008

(9th Cir. 1981).

preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary and drastic

remedy" that is never awarded as of right.

u.s.

674,

Instead,

688-90

(2008)

in every case,

2 - ORDER -

(citations
the court

and

Munaf v. Geren,
quotation

"must balance the

553

omitted).
competing

claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the
granting

or

withholding

of

the

requested

Natural Resources Defense Council,
365, 376 (2008)

Inc.,

Winter

relief."
555 U.S.

7,

v.

129 S.Ct.

(citation omitted).

A preliminary injunction is appropriate if the moving party
demonstrates either:
merits

and

the

(1) a combination of probable success on the

possibility

of

irreparable

harm;

or

( 2)

that

serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips in
its favor.

LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Homes of Nevada, 434

F. 3d

1155

1150,

Perfect 10, Inc.

(9th

Cir.

2006),

v. Google, Inc.,

overruled on
653 F.3d 976

other grounds,
(9th Cir.

2011).

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.

Id.

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
1319-20

party~

(9th

Cir.

Stanley v.
1994).

Univ.

The

of S.

standards

Cal.,
for

13 F.3d 1313,
issuance

of

a

temporary restraining order are at least as exacting as those for
a preliminary injunction.
F.2d at 1008.

3 - ORDER -

Los Angeles Unified Sch.

Dist.,

650

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff fails to establish he is personally subject to the
immediate possibility of irreparable harm.

Plaintiff argues the

return of monies seized upon his arrest are necessary to prevent
his eviction and pay bills.

Plaintiff goes on to state, however,

that he has already been evicted from his residence.

Moreover,

the

entered a

Court

Judgment

notes
of

December 6,
No.

that

District

Revocation
2013,

Michael

Probation

or

Mosman

Supervised

Release

on

in the case of United States v. Bonneau, Case

3:10-cr-00402-M0-1

incarceration.

of

Judge

As

sentencing

such,

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

has

not

to

24

months

established

of
the

immediate possibility of irreparable harm if the monies seized
upon his arrest are not returned.
Plaintiff

also

argues

the

dissemination

of

alleged

false

information caused his eviction from his residence and caused him
to suffer severe emotional distress.

Again, however, Plaintiff's

current incarceration precludes him from prevailing on a claim
that he will suffer the immediate possibility of irreparable harm.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to a temporary restraining
order or preliminary injunctive relief.

I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
4 - ORDER -

CONCLUSION

For these reasons,

the court DENIES Plaintiff's Emergency

Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction (#3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

~day
Owen M. Panner
United States District Judge

5 - ORDER -

\\ord.local\shares\Shares\Panner\Zan\13-2110_0rderonTRO.wpd