Summary
This United States District Court order resolves several pending motions in a pro se prisoner's § 1983 civil rights action. The court denies the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, concluding he failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. The court also denies requests for appointed counsel and an extension of the discovery deadline, grants the defendants' motion to extend their reply time, and notes that the defendants' motion for summary judgment remains under advisement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order under the Winter test.
- Whether the plaintiff qualifies for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e).
- Whether the plaintiff demonstrated good cause for an extension of discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).
Holdings
- The motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is denied because the plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits and cannot demonstrate likely irreparable harm.
- The motion for appointment of counsel is denied because the plaintiff has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances and can adequately articulate his claims.
- The motion for extension of discovery is denied because the plaintiff failed to show good cause; the defendants' motion for extension of time to file a reply is granted.
Key quotations
“A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the [moving party] is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).” (22)
“To establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate “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.” Id. at 20.” (20)
Factual background
Plaintiff Daniel Zachary Harper, an adult inmate at the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, alleges that correctional officer Michael Taylor Jr. repeatedly sexually harassed him, that prison staff failed to investigate the harassment, retaliated against him, and blocked his use of the prison grievance process.
Procedural history
The case was filed on 15 February 2024. Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed several motions seeking injunctive relief, appointment of counsel, and an extension of discovery. The district court considered each motion and issued an order on 30 March 2025.