Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied Steven Huber's two motions for a preliminary injunction concerning access to his landlocked property over BLM-managed land. The court held that Huber had not shown irreparable harm because the BLM had agreed not to initiate trespass proceedings while the case was pending, and his alleged emotional and psychological harms were unsupported and theoretical. The court also rejected unrelated requests concerning magistrate-judge procedures, communications, and the scope of defendants' federal employment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm sufficient to obtain a preliminary injunction against the BLM's access requirements, fee demands, and threatened trespass proceedings.
- Whether the additional requests in Plaintiff's second motion—including changes to court procedures, production of communications, and a declaration concerning Defendants' federal employment—were properly presented through a motion for preliminary injunction.
Holdings
- Plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm because the BLM was not presently interfering with his property access or pursuing trespass proceedings, and his alleged emotional, psychological, and future harms were unsupported, speculative, or theoretical.
- The court rejected the additional requests because Plaintiff provided no legal or logical basis for them and they were not properly raised in a motion for preliminary injunction.
Key quotations
“To constitute irreparable harm, an injury must be certain, great, actual ‘and not theoretical.’” (Section II)
“The party seeking injunctive relief must show that the injury complained of is of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm.” (Section II)
“It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Docket Nos. 10, 30) are DENIED.” (Conclusion)
Factual background
Plaintiff owns several land parcels in Uintah County, Utah, that are surrounded by private or government-owned property. In 2023, he constructed a 414-foot road from Lapoint Bench Road across BLM-managed land to provide access to his parcels without obtaining prior BLM authorization. The BLM initiated trespass proceedings and required Plaintiff to apply and pay fees for right-of-way access, but agreed not to initiate trespass proceedings while the lawsuit was pending.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed suit on July 21, 2025, after the Bureau of Land Management required him to apply and pay fees for right-of-way access associated with a road he constructed across BLM-managed land. Plaintiff filed two motions for preliminary injunction. The court denied both motions, concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm and that the additional requests in the second motion were unrelated to, or improperly raised through, a preliminary-injunction motion.