Pergande v. Trumbo et al

Filing 46

ORDER: Denying Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 43 . Signed on 8/19/2011 by U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
EDWARD PERGANDE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil NO. 10-6314-TC
ORDER

SHERIFF JOHN TRUMBO, et al.,
Defendants.
Hogan, District Judge.
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Umatilla County Jail, has
moved for a preliminary injunction against defendants from
reading his outgoing mail and to "give notice when or if this
incoming mail is read." (sic) Motion (#43) p. 1-2.
"The purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to
preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial
on the merits can be held," and it is generally inappropriate
for a federal court

at the preliminary injunction stage to

give a final judgment on the merits.

University of Texas y.

Camenisch, 451 U.S. 391, 395 (1981); Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd.
V. Avis, Inc, 316 F.2d 804, 808 (9th Cir. 1983).
1 - ORDER

See also,

Regents of University of California v. ABC, Inc., 747 F.2d
511, 514 (9th Cir. 1984) ("* * * the function of a preliminary
injunction is to preserve the status quo ad litem.") Wright
and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure

§

2947 (1973) ("*

* * the most compelling reason in favor of entering a Rule
65(a) order is the need to prevent the judicial process from
being rendered futile by defendant's actions or refusal to
act") .
In this case,

the preliminary equitable relief that

plaintiff seeks would in essence constitute a judgment on the
merits of one or more of plaintiff's underlying claim and is
therefor inappropriate.
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#43) is
denied.
IT IS SO

ORDERE~

DATED this

2 - ORDER

J.J ~y of