Jackson v. Williams et al
Filing
26
ORDER: Denying Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 25 . Signed on 12/7/09 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (ljl)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT FOR THE D I S T R I C T OF OREGON JAMES DONALD JACKSON, J R . , Plaintiff, CV. 0 8 - 6 3 8 8 - H U ORDER
v.
MARK NOOTH, e t a l . , Defendants. HAGGERTY, J u d g e P l a i n t i f f , a n i n m a t e a t Two R i v e r s C o r r e c t i o n a l I n s t i t u t i o n (TRCI), brings t h i s c i v i l rights action pro se. I On J u l y 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 ,
terminated this action due to p l a i n t i f f ' s failure to f i l e an On S e p t e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 , I v a c a t e d t h e
amended complaint as ordered.
entry of judgment based upon p l a i n t i f f ' s representation t h a t he had f i l e d a n a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t o n May 1 5 , 2 0 0 9 , b y d e l i v e r i n g i t t o prison officials for filing. P l a i n t i f f was g i v e n 45 d a y s i n w h i c h t o f i l e complaint. the his amended
A f t e r o n e e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e , p l a i n t i f f now m o v e s f o r a temporary restraining order requiring prison
entry of
o f f i c i a l s t o t r a n s f e r p l a i n t i f f f r o m TRCI t o 1 - - ORDER
the Oregon State
Correctional I n s t i t u t i o n ( O S C I ) " p e n d i n g c o m p l e t i o n o f h i s c o u r t ordered amended complaint." OISCUSSION Because p l a i n t i f f has yet to f i l e a complaint which survives screening pursuant t o 28 U.S.C.
§§
1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) (B) a n d 1 9 1 5 A ( b ) , n o Moreover, in
parties have been served with process in this case. h i s m o t i o n f o r a TRO,
p l a i n t i f f complains of conduct by prison For See
o f f i c i a l s who a r e n o t n a m e d a s d e f e n d a n t s i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g . b o t h o f t h e s e r e a s o n s , p l a i n t i f f ' s m o t i o n f o r TRO i s d e n i e d . Z e l d a v . I N S , 7 5 3 F . 2 d 7 1 9 , 7 2 7 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 8 5 )
(federal court may
issue injunction i f i t has personal jurisdiction over the parties and s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e claim); Fed. R. Civ. 65(d) P.
(injunction or restraining order i s binding only upon parties
or those in privity) . Denial of injunctive r e l i e f i s also warranted due to the fact that p l a i n t i f f has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits as demonstrated by this court's dismissal of his
original complaint.
See Winter v. Natural Res. DeL CounciL Inc.,
129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008) ( p l a i n t i f f seeking preliminary injunction must demonstrate that he i s likely to succeed on the merits);
M a r l y n N u t r a c e u t i c a l s , I n c . V. M u c a s P h a r m a GmbH & C o . , 5 7 1 F . 3 d 873, 879
(9~
Cir. 2009)
(mandatory injunction, which goes beyond Finally,
maintaining the status quo, is particularly disfavored).
p l a i n t i f f offers no basis to support the issuance of injunctive 2 - - ORDER
relief
without
notice
to
the
parties.
See
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
65(b)(l).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
plaintiff's motion for a temporary
r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r ( # 2 5 ) i s DENIED.
IT I S SO ORDERED.
DATED t h i s ::; day of December, 2009.
~w-United States
D~strict
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?
