York v. Carpenter et al

Filing 31

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 21 is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 22 is denied for the reasons previously identified in the court's Order 12 dated April 5, 2016. Signed on 7/7/16 by Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman. (Mailed copy to plaintiff) (dsg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
BRIAN WILLIAM YORK,
Case No. 6:16-cv-00320-MO
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
TAMELLA CARPENTER and MARITZA
V. ENCINITAS,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, District Judge.
This

civil

rights

Motion

plaintiff's

for

action

Temporary

Preliminary Injunction (#21) .
defendants

to

make

verbal

any

(2) requiring

immediately

him

(3) requiring

him

written

to

answer
wear

before

the

Restraining

court

and

Order

from:

(1)

statements
a

sexual
a

GPS

requiring

against

history
ankle

him

his

to

will;

questionnaire;
monitor;

(4) committing any retaliatory acts against him in the future.
1 - ORDER

on

Plaintiff asks the court to order

refrain

or

to

comes

and

The standards for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and
a

Stuhlbarg

preliminary injunction are essentially identical.

Intern.

Sales

F.3d 832,

839 n.

preliminary

Inc.

Co.,
7

v.

John

(9th Cir.

injunction

must

succeed on the merits,

D.

Brushy and Co.,

in

his

establish

seeking a

that

likely

he

is

to

that he is likely to suffer irreparable

favor,

and that an

that the balance of
injunction is

in the

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

public interest."

Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
preliminary

240

"A plaintiff

2001).

harm in the absence of preliminary relief,
equities tips

Inc.,

injunction

by

A plaintiff may also qualify for a

showing

that

there

are

serious

questions going to the merits of his claim and that the balance
of hardships

tips

sharply in his

Winter factors are also met.
Cottrell,

favor,

so long as

the other

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v.

632 F.3d 1127. 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011).

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

Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal.,

clearly favor the moving party.

13

F.3d 1313, 1319-20 (9th Cir. 1994).
In

this

associated
asks

the

case,

with

his

court

to

2 - ORDER

plaintiff

challenges

the

conditions

post-prison

supervision.

He

principally

preclude

defendants

from

enforcing

these

Plaintiff's

conditions.

requests

for

preliminary

injunctive

relief improperly seek to change the relative position of the
parties, not preserve it, insofar as plaintiff seeks relief from
the

conditions

application
supra;
&

of

of

his

This

release.

preliminary

injunctive

see also Marlyn Nutraceuticals,

Co., 571 F.3d 873,

879

is

(9th Cir.

not

relief.

appropriate
See

Stanley,

v. Mucas Pharma Gmbh

Inc.

2009)

an

(mandatory injunctions

which go beyond the status quo are particularly disfavored).
addition,

plaintiff

enforcing

terms

has

of

not

demonstrated

post-prison

that

supervision

In

defendants

are

that

not

are

consistent with the orders of the applicable state court(s)
that

the

terms

of

his

supervision

are

not

commensurate

or

with

plaintiff's criminal history as a sex offender.
Plaintiff also asks the court to issue an order enjoining
any potential retaliatory conduct by defendants.
action

is

too

speculative

to

support

Such adverse

preliminary

injunctive

relief.

Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 F.2d 668,

674

Cir.

(9th

1988)

("Speculative

injury

does

not

constitute

irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary
injunction.").
Plaintiff

fails

to

demonstrate

irreparable injury in this case.
3 - ORDER

the

likelihood

of

any

He also fails to establish a

As a result,

likelihood of success on the merits.

preliminary

injunctive relief is not appropriate.
CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's

Motion

Preliminary Injunction
Appointment

of

for

Temporary

(#21)

is denied.

Counsel

( #22)

is

Restraining

Order

and

Plaintiff's Motion for

denied

previously identified in the court's Order

for

(#12)

the

reasons

dated April 5,

2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

t~day

of July, 2016.

United States District Judge

4 - ORDER