mandatory injunctions which go beyond the status quo are particularly disfavored
How later courts described this case
- mandatory injunctions which go beyond the status quo are particularly disfavored
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
RUSSELL ROS,
Case No. 6:21-cv-00739-HZ
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
COLLETTE PETERS, et al.,
Defendants.
HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff in this prisoner civil rights case moves for a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction restoring
his housing status, prison job, educational programming, and
personal property he lost in the wake of disciplinary hearings
conducted within the Oregon Department of Corrections. According
to Plaintiff, Defendants retaliated against him for filing a
lawsuit against correctional officers, subjecting him to what he
believes were unsupported disciplinary hearings where Defendants
failed to afford him the procedural protections he was due. As a
result of those hearings, he spent time in segregation, endured
1 - ORDER
a prison transfer to the Oregon State Penitentiary from the
Oregon State Correctional Institution, lost his prison job, was
expelled from an educational program resulting from a reduction
in his incentive level, and was deprived of various personal
property. He asks the Court to vacate the findings made during
his disciplinary hearings and immediately remedy all adverse
consequences that resulted from them.
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must
establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that
an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A
plaintiff may also qualify for a preliminary injunction by
showing that there are serious questions going to the merits of
his claim and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in his
favor, so long as the other Winter factors are also met.
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127. 1134-
35 (9th Cir. 2011). Importantly, and particularly relevant to
this case, 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 clearly favor the moving party.
2 - ORDER
Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1319-20 (9th Cir.
1994).
Plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction that will change the
status quo significantly. He claims that his disciplinary
hearings were the result of retaliation, therefore all adverse
consequences that flowed from those hearings must not only be
undone, but must be undone immediately. Not only are such
mandatory injunctions disfavored, but Plaintiff has not
definitively established that his disciplinary convictions are
wholly unfounded. In the absence of such a strong showing, it is
not appropriate to change the relative position of the parties
by way of a mandatory injunction. Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc v.
Mucas Pharma Gmbh & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2009)
(mandatory injunctions which go beyond the status quo are
particularly disfavored). Stated somewhat differently,
Plaintiff’s desire to prevail on his claims and obtain relief in
a more expeditious manner than is customary is not sufficient to
justify preliminary injunctive relief.
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time (#60) to file
their Response (#61) to Plaintiff’s request for preliminary
3 - ORDER
injunctive relief is granted. The Response filed March 10, 2022
is therefore timely.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction (#55) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Marc h 11, 2 022
DATE Marco A. Hernandez
United States District Judge
4 - ORDER