Joshua A. Turnidge v. ODOC, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied Joshua A. Turnidge’s motion to strike the defendants’ answer and his motion for a preliminary injunction concerning lighting in his cell at Two Rivers Correctional Institution. The court concluded that Turnidge had a low likelihood of success on his Eighth Amendment, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Equal Protection claims. The court also found that he had not demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable injury and therefore denied preliminary injunctive relief.

Holdings

1. The motion to strike was denied because Defendants' Answer was sufficiently pleaded.
2. Preliminary injunctive relief was denied because Plaintiff had a low likelihood of success on his Eighth Amendment claim. The record did not show the kind of incessant bright lighting that could violate the Eighth Amendment absent a legitimate penological justification, and restricting lighting to dim security lights or flashlights would impair the legitimate objective of institutional security.
3. Plaintiff was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief because he had a low likelihood of success on his ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. He presented evidence of PTSD but did not show that he had been excluded from, or denied the benefits of, a prison service, program, or activity because of his disability.
4. Plaintiff was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief because he had little probability of success on his Equal Protection claim. PTSD or mental illness did not establish membership in a protected class, and Plaintiff alleged no differential treatment because he was subject to the same lighting procedures as other prisoners.
5. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of irreparable injury because the record showed that the main lights were not continuously illuminated and were primarily used in the morning or in short, as-needed intervals.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendants' Answer should be stricken as insufficiently pleaded.
2. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary injunction restricting or eliminating the use of main cell lighting based on alleged violations of the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Disposition

denied