Munro v. Kelly et al

Filing 63

ORDER: Based on the foregoing, this Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 45 ). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 12/6/2018 by Judge Michael H. Simon. **4 PAGES, PRINT ALL** (Shawn Monro, Prisoner ID: 13803427) (gw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SHAWN RICHARD MONRO,

Case No. 6:17-cv-01650-SB

Plaintiff,

ORDER

V.

BRANDON KELLY, et al.,
Defendants.

MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge.
Plaintiff, an inmate at Snake River Correctional Institution (SRCI), brings this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 45). For the reasons set forth below, this Court DENIES
Plaintiffs Motion.

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 tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v.

Nat. Res. Def Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733 , 740
PAGE 1 - ORDER

(9th Cir. 2015); Ass'n des Eleveurs de Canards et d'Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937,
944 (9th Cir. 2013). In the Ninth Circuit, a plaintiff also may obtain injunctive relief if there are
serious questions going to the merits, the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor, and the
remaining two Winter factors are satisfied. A Woman's Friend Pregnancy Res. Clinic v. Becerra,
No. 15-17517, 2018 WL 4090700, at *1 (9th Cir. 2018). If a plaintiff fails to demonstrate a
likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions going to the merits, the court need not
address the remaining factors. Garcia, 786 F.3d at 740. Where, as here, the plaintiff seeks a
mandatory injunction which goes beyond maintaining the status quo, he must demonstrate that
the facts and law clearly favor an injunction. Id. ; see also Am. Freedom Def Initiative v. King

Cty., 796 F.3d 1165, 1173 (9th Cir. 2015) (mandatory injunctions are disfavored and will not be
entered in doubtful cases).
A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must demonstrate a sufficient nexus
between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint.

Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F .3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). "The
relationship ... is sufficiently strong where the preliminary injunction would grant relief of the
same character as that which may be granted finally." Id. (quotation marks omitted). "Absent
that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks authority to grant the relief requested." Id. ; see

Saddiq v. Ryan, 703 F. App'x 570, 572 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming denial of preliminary
injunction because the prisoner did not establish a nexus between the claims of retaliation in his
motion and the claims set forth in his complaint).

Ill
Ill
Ill

PAGE 2 - ORDER

DISCUSSION

In Plaintiffs original Complaint, he alleges that Oregon State Penitentiary (OSP) officials
violated his constitutional rights by placing him in temporary disciplinary segregation on
February 13, 2017, filing false misconduct charges against him for smuggling drugs into OSP,
denying him due process at a related disciplinary hearing, and confining him in various levels of
segregation. Pl.'s Compl. (ECF No. 2) at 2-19.
In Plaintiffs proposed Supplemental Complaint, in contrast, he challenges different
disciplinary action. Plaintiff alleges that SRCI officials violated his constitutional rights by
transferring him to administrative segregation on June 1, 2018, pending an investigation into
charges that his cellmate tested positive for Methamphetamine. Pl' s Mot. for Leave to File
Suppl. Compl. (ECF No. 49) at 2, 11, 14-29. Plaintiff alleges that the SRCI officials
subsequently denied him due process at a September 2018 misconduct proceeding in which he
was found guilty of possessing a controlled substance contained in a bottle in his cell. Id. at 3,
32-44. The Court recently denied Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint.
This Court denies Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction because the requested
injunctive relief does not relate to the allegations of Plaintiffs original Complaint. Instead,
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against the SRCI officials named as Defendan~s in his proposed
Supplemental Complaint, and the relief relates to disciplinary action taken against him for
possessing the controlled substance found in his cell. See PI.' s Mot. for Prel. Inj. at 2-4. Because
Plaintiffs Supplemental Complaint is not properly before the Court, injunctive relief is not
warranted. Further, Plaintiff has made no attempt to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the
merits of the claims raised in his Complaint.

Ill

PAGE 3 - ORDER

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction (ECF No. 45).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

I~

DATED this_b _ day of December, 2018.
_

~
United States District Judge

PAGE 4 - ORDER