Ferry et al v. Oregon Department of Corrections et al

Filing 21

ORDER: Denying Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 17 . Signed on 11/3/15 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (Mailed copy to plaintiff) (dsg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
RICHARD FERRY,
Plaintiff,

6:15-cv-01136-AA

v.

ORDER

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
AIKEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff,

an

inmate

in

the

custody

of

the

Oregon

Department of Corrections, filed this action alleging that the
defendants'

have

deprived

him

of

"fundamental

his

constitutional right of familial association with his son,
R.J., in violation of the First and Fourteenths to the United
States Constitution."
Plaintiff
requiring
1 - ORDER

has

defendants

moved
to

for

"cease

a
and

preliminary
desist

the

injunction
permanent

suspension of J.R.'s visiting privileges" (at the Oregon State
Penitentiary).

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#17).

The general rules for granting preliminary relief are
familiar and need not be discussed in detail.

"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 v.

Camenisch,

451 U.S.

391, 395 (1981); Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. V. Avis, Inc, 316
F.2d

804,

808

(9th

Cir.

1983).

See

also,

Regents

of

University of California v. ABC, Inc., 747 F.2d 511, 514 (9th
Cir. 198 4)

( "* * * the function of a preliminary injunction is

to preserve the

status quo ad li tem. ")

Federal Practice and Procedure

§

Wright and Miller,

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

plaintiff's

underlying

claim

and

is

therefor

inappropriate.
Therefore, plaintiff's Motion for
(#17) is DENIED.

2 - ORDER

Preliminary Injunction

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

of November, 2015.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER