Barrett v. Williams et al

Filing 11

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and TemporaryRestraining Order 5 is DENIED. See attached 4-page order. Signed on 1/2/2012 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. Copy of order mailed to plaintiff. (mr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
JACOB BARRETT,

CV. 11-6358-HZ
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
MAX WILLIAMS, et.al.,
Defendants.
HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action comes before the
court

on

Plaintiff's

Motion

for

Temporary Restraining Order (#5).

Preliminary

Injunction

and

Plaintiff asks the Court to

arrange for Plaintiff's transfer, pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat.
§§ 179.473-179.477, for the purpose of evaluation and/or treatment.
(#5.)

Plaintiff provides a detailed list of the mental health

evaluations and tests he requests, and the required qualifications
of the professionals to be consulted.
follow, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
1 -- ORDER

(Id.)

For the reasons that

STANDARDS
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008).

"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary

injunction must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the
merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities
tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public
interest."

Id., at 20 (emphasis added); Alliance for the Wild

Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

In the

Ninth Circuit, assuming the other elements of the Winter test are
met, a "sliding scale" approach may be taken and "[a] preliminary
injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates ... that
serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance
of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff's favor."
the

Wild

Rockies,

632

F.3d

at

1131-35

Alliance for

("'serious

questions'

approach survives Winter when applied as part of the four-element
Winter test").
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on November 10, 2011,
alleging

Department

of

Corrections

personnel

are

engaged

in

violating his First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights under the United Stated Constitution (Counts 1-3;
11;12), and his rights under the Oregon Constitution (Counts 4-10)
2 -- ORDER

when they "restricted and violated a letter written by Plaintiff
for having art work on the envelope" and delayed initiating mental
health exams and rehabilitative treatment.
Plaintiff

filed

the

motion

before

the

(#2, at 11-14.)

court

for

preliminary

injunction and temporary restraining order with his complaint.
In

the

affidavit

supporting

the

motion

for

preliminary

injunction, Plaintiff argues "[t]his case raises several issues
concerning whether the delay and/or absence of meaningful and
adequate rehabilitative programming and treatment violates the
rights of prisoners like plaintiff convicted under Aggravated
Murder pursuant to ORS 163.105[;]" and that "[w]hile courts in
general have not recognized an unequivocal right to rehabilitation
for prisoners, a closer examination of the[] [previously cited]
cases indicates at least one which sets the standard for a right to
rehabilitation, and in some cases to be transferred to a mental
hospital."

(#6, at 2-3.)

Plaintiff asks this court to order a

mental health evaluation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 35, and
also cites to Oregon statutes authorizing the transfer of inmates
to the Oregon State Hospital for evaluation.

(Id., at 4.)

"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 not appropriate for a federal
court at the preliminary injunction stage to give a final judgment
on the merits.

3 -- ORDER

University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 391, 395

(1981); 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");

see

also

Marlyn

Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucas Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879
(9th Cir. 2009)(mandatory injunction, which goes beyond maintaining
the status quo, is particularly disfavored). The injunctive relief
that Plaintiff seeks changes the status of the parties and would,
in essence, constitute a judgment on the merits of one or more of
his underlying claims.

It is therefore inappropriate.

Moreover,

Plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits
of the claims tied to the injunctive relief he seeks.
Natural

Res.

Def.

Council,

Inc.,

129

S.Ct.

Winter v.
365,

374

(2008)(plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must demonstrate
that he is likely to succeed on the merits); see also 18 U.S.C.
§ 3626(a)(2)(providing that preliminary injunctive relief in civil
action with respect to prison conditions must be narrowly drawn).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order (#5) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

2nd

day of January, 2012.

/s/ Marco A. Hernandez
Marco A. Hernandez
United States District Judge
4 -- ORDER