The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
THOMAS NICHOLAS MERIWEATHER,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00384-JR
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
ERIN REYES,
Respondent.
HERNÁNDEZ, Chief Judge
Petitioner, an adult in custody at the Two Rivers Correctional Institution, brings this
habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Currently before the Court is petitioner’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 17). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES
petitioner’s Motion.
Petitioner’s habeas petition challenges a 2018 decision of the Oregon Board of Parole and
Post-Prison Supervision (the “Board”) denying his request for an interim hearing. Petitioner
alleges the Board violated his rights to due process and equal protection under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments. Petitioner also appears to challenge a 2014 Board decision revoking
his parole and imposing a 120-month term of imprisonment as a sanction; he alleges imposition
of the sanction violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.
In his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, petitioner seeks an order “barring further
unconstitutional actions by the Board of Parole in this parole revocation case before this court.”
In his Memorandum in Support, he seeks an order preventing the Board from requiring him to
participate in a psychological evaluation and an impending exit interview to determine his
eligibility for re-release on parole.
A petitioner “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 petitioner 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 Winters
factors are also met. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir.
2011).
A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must demonstrate a sufficient nexus
between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint or
petition. 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 fully.” Id. (internal quotation
omitted). “Absent that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks authority to grant the relief
requested.” Id.
Here, petitioner is not entitled to the preliminary injunctive relief sought because he has
not established a likelihood of success on the merits; there is not a sufficient nexus between the
injury claimed in the motion and the conduct asserted in the petition. As noted, petitioner’s
habeas petition challenges decisions made by the Board in the past imposing a term of
imprisonment on the parole revocation and denying a request for an interim hearing; the relief
requested in his motion for preliminary injunction by contrast pertains to future actions of the
Board concerning petitioner’s current eligibility for parole. Because petitioner’s request for
preliminary injunction does not relate to the allegations of his Petition, this Court lacks authority
to grant the preliminary injunctive relief requested. Pac. Radiation, 810 F.3d at 636.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court DENIES petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(ECF No. 17).
DATED this | 50 day of March, 2023.
A bi be ena au,
Marco ‘A. Hernandez
Chief United States District Judge
3 - ORDER