Pohlman v. Hormann et al

Filing 14

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 15 is DENIED. Signed on 10/20/2014 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (gw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
MARLIN BRANDT POHLMAN,
3: 14-cv-01483-PK
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

KEVIN HORMANN, et al.,
Defendants.
BROWN, District Judge.

Motion for Temporary Restraingin Order [3]

Plaintiff moves the Court for a temporary restraining order
directing defendants to:

( 1)

enter a sedentary work restriction

entry for him in the Corrections Information System;
bottom tier bunk entry for

..
,•

( 2) enter a
Information

System;

him in the Corrections

(3) provide accommodations consistent with the Americans

...,

with Dis ~bilities Act in all work assignments;
an institution consistent with his medical,

1 - ORDER

(4) transfer him to
program and custody

',

level; (5) upon transfer, enter a keep at current location entry in
the Corrections Information System;
access

to

prison

correspondence.

legal

and

( 6)

resources,

restore his regular

library

access

and

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [3].

To obtain preliminary injunctive relief in the Ninth Circuit,
a

party must

meet

one

of

two

alternative

tests. 1

Under

the

"traditional" standard, preliminary relief may be granted if the
court finds:

(1) the moving party will suffer irreparable injury

if the preliminary relief is not granted;

(2) the moving party has

a likelihood of success on the merits; (3) the balance of potential
harm favors the moving party; and 4) the advancement of the public
interest favors granting injunctive relief.
Department of Revenue,

Burlington N.R.R. v.

934 F.2d 1064, 1084 (9th Cir. 1991).

Under the alternative test,

the moving party may meet the

burden by showing either (1) probable success on the merits and the
possibility of irreparable injury, or (2)

that serious questions

are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the moving
party's favor.

Id.; Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v.

Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1410 (9th Cir. 1991),

cert.

denied,

503

U.S.

985

represent two points on a
1

(1992).

"These

two

formulations

sliding scale in which the

required

Notably,
the
standards
for
issuance
of
a
temporary
restraining order are at least as exacting as those for a
preliminary injunction.
Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United
States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 650 F.2d 1004, 1008
(9th Cir. 1981).
2 - ORDER

degree of irreparable harm increases as the probability of success
decreases."

Prudential Real Estate Affiliates v. PPR Realty, Inc.,

204 F.3d 867, 874

(9th Cir. 2000).

As set forth in plaintiff's own Declaration [4] at 2, medical
personnel saw him for his April 2014 injuries.

Ultimately they

determined work restrictions were not medically warranted, though
it appears a temporary lower tier bunk restriction was ordered.
addition,

In

staff at Snake River Correctional Institution reported

plaintiff's "transport order stated [he] had requested transfer to
a facility with a higher level law library due to legal work."
While plaintiff denies this assertion,

At 3.

Id.

insisting he only

requested more time in the Deer River Correctional Institution law
library, the Court denies plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief
on the basis that he has failed to demonstrate a
success on the merits.

likelihood of

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc,

12 9 S. Ct. 365, 37 4 ( 2008) (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction
must demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits).
Moreover, the Court's review of plaintiff's Complaint reveals
that in addition to money damages,

he is seeking the exact same

relief he seeks in his motion for injunctive relief.
[2]

at

7.

Ordinarily,

a

preliminary

See Complaint

injunction maintains

status quo pending a final decision on the merits.

Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981).

the

University of

Plaintiff is asking

the Court to alter the status quo by granting him, before trial,

3 - ORDER

the very relief he hopes to obtain through this action.
"mandatory

injunction,"

as

it

extraordinary circumstances.
Homes

of

Nevada,

434

is

known,

is

granted

Such a
only

in

See LGS Architects, Inc. V. Concordia

F.3d

1150,

1158

(9th

Cir.

Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucas Pharma GmbH & Co.,

2006);

Marlyn

571 F.3d 873, 879

(9th Cir. 2009) (mandatory injunction, which goes beyond maintaining
the status quo, is particularly disfavored) .
CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary

Injunction [15] is DENIED.

JvDATED this

J..i)

day of

Anna J. Brown
United States District Judge

4 - ORDER