Faunce v. Paulson et al

Filing 20

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF # 11 ) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 11/17/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff). (pvh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ROBERT FAUNCE,
Case No. 6:17-cv-01470-YY
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
DR. PAULSON, N.P. AMY MANN,
DR. DEGNER, R.N. KAREN IRELAND,
R.N. C. PRIES, NURSE MGR. C. COFFEE,
A. KIDWELL,
Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Oregon State Penitentiary, brings this civil rights action pro se.
In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts Eighth Amendment claims of cruel and unusual punishment
against several doctors and nurses and a grievance coordinator on grounds that they deprived him
of medical inhalers (Claim One); adequate medical care for his cataract (Claim Two); and
Veterans Administration benefits and care by doctors outside the penitentiary (Claim Three).
Complaint, ECF # 2, at 4-6. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF #11)
seeking an “order enjoining the Library Coordinator of the Oregon State Penitentiary to honor all
legitimate requests by Plaintiff to photocopy documents that are relevant to the prosecution of
1 - ORDER

this action, including but not limited to the Complaint, dispositive motions, communications with
opposing counsel, discovery documents, and requests for discovery.”
A.

Standards
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that (1) he is likely to succeed

on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3)
the balance of equities tip in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see also League of Wilderness
Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Connaughton, 752 F.3d 755,759 (9th Cir.
2014) (court may issue injunction if there are serious questions going to the merits and the
balance of hardships tip sharply towards the plaintiff, provided he also shows there is a
likelihood of irreparable injury and the injunction is in the public interest).
B.

Analysis
Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction requiring the Library Coordinator, who is not a

party to this action, to provide him with photocopies. Rule 65(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that a preliminary injunction is binding on non-parties “who are in active
concert or participation” with the parties or their officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys. Plaintiff has not established that the Library Coordinator is in active concert or
participation with the medical professionals or grievance coordinator who are the defendants in
this case.
Plaintiff=s motion also fails because he has not established the likelihood of success on
the merits of his underlying claims. Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction pertains to photocopies;
however, his complaint alleges Eighth Amendment claims based on the denial of medical
treatment. Thus, in his motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff has failed to establish that he
2 - ORDER

is likely to prevail on the merits of his underlying Eighth Amendment claims. See Klassy v.
Feather, 2013 WL 6827925, *1-2 (D. Or., Dec. 20, 2013) (plaintiff alleging denial of religious
freedom rights under First Amendment was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief requiring
prison officials to provide access to legal materials).
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Plaintiff=s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF #11) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

day of November, 2017.

_______________________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER