Breckenridge v. Lappin et al
Filing
56
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 50 is Denied. Signed on 12/18/09 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (cp)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
WILMER KEITH BRECKEXRIDGE Plaintiff,
v.
Civil No. 08-734-CL
ORDER
HARVEY HARPIN, et al.,
Defendants. AIKEN, District Judge. Plaintiff now moves the court for a "temporary
injunction" against the BOP'S use of ion scan equipment at FCI Sheridan. (#53). For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion is denied. "The purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial
on the merits can be held," and it is generally inappropriate
for a federal court at the preliminary injunction stage to
give a final judgment on the merits. University of Texas v.
Camenisch, 451 U.S. 391, 395 (1981) Tanner Motor Livew, Ltd. ;
V. Avis, Inc, 316 F.2d 804, 808 (9th Cir. 1983).
1
See also,
-
ORDER
Resents of Universitv of California v. ABC. Inc. 511, 514 (9th Cir. 1984)
('I*
I
747 F.2d
* * the function of a preliminary
injunction is to preserve the status quo ad litem.") Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Z 2947 (1973)
(IT*
* * the most compelling reason in favor of entering a Rule
65(a) order is the need to prevent the judicial process from being rendered futile by defendant's actions or refusal to
act") .
In addition, a party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must demonstrate: (1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits; ( 2 ) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and
(4)
that an injunction is in
the public interest. Winter v. NRDC, Inc ., 129 S . Ct . 365, 374
(2008).
In this case, plaintiff has failed to establish any of these requirements. Plaintiff has no standing to assert claims on behalf of unidentified third parties and his First Amendment right of association claim has virtually no chance
of success on the merits in the content of prison visitation.
Moreover, plaintiff has made no demonstration that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued, and the balance of equities and public interest factors favor defendants. Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief is denied.
plaintiff I s request to compel discovery is denied as moot
pursuant to defendants' request for extension of time to respond to plaintiff's requests, Response to Motion (#53) p.
7, which is hereby allowed.
I T IS SO ORDERED
DATED this %day
of
Ann
Aiken United State District Judge
3
-
ORDER
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
