The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
JAMES CHARLES FUDGE,
Case No. 6:23-cv-00986-YY
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
CHRISTINA TOWERS, et al.,
Defendants.
BAGGIO, Judge
Plaintiff, an adult currently in custody at the Snake River Correctional Institution
(“SRCI”) brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as a self-represented litigant. Currently
before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining
Order (ECF No. 36). For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.
Plaintiffs Complaint alleges claims related to a prison disciplinary proceeding that took
place in 2021 at the Oregon State Penitentiary and which resulted in Plaintiff’s placement in
administrative segregation for a period of time and in his subsequent placement in the intensive
management unit (“IMU”). Plaintiff now moves for a preliminary injunction preventing the
Oregon Department of Corrections (“ODOC”) from placing Plaintiff in IMU at SRCI as a result
of a new, unrelated July 2024 prison disciplinary proceeding.
“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.
Nat. Res. 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). 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.
Stanley v. Univ. of Southern. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1319-20 (9th Cir. 1994). Finally, where an
individual in custody seeks a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order with respect
to prison conditions, such relief, if granted, “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive
means necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
In order to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, 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. Pacific 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. (quotation marks omitted). “Absent that relationship or nexus, the
district court lacks authority to grant the relief requested.” Id.; see also 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).
Here, the claims underlying Plaintiff’s motion are different from the claims underlying
his Complaint. Accordingly, the Court lacks authority to grant the preliminary injunctive relief
Plaintiff seeks. Moreover, Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of “success on the merits”
sufficient to justify the extraordinary relief sought or that he will suffer irreparable harm.
Finally, the balance of equities and public interest strongly favor Defendants as there is a
compelling public interest in maintaining prison discipline and security. See Cutter v. Wilkinson
544 USS. 709, 725 n.13 (2005).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 36) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 29th day of October, 2024.
United States District Judge
3 - ORDER