Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02390/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02390-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2390

___________

Beck, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Tim Pawlenty, Governor, State of *

Minnesota; Jesse Ventura, Former *

Governor, State of Minnesota; Joan * [UNPUBLISHED]

Fabian, Commissioner, Minnesota *

Department of Corrections; Sheryl *

Ramstad Hvass, Former Commissioner, *

Minnesota Department of Corrections; *

Doug Johnson, Washington County *

Attorney; Thomas P. Hogan, Minnesota *

Department of Health; Lynn Dingle, *

Warden, Minnesota Correctional *

Facility, Oak Park Heights; John King, *

Associate Warden, Minnesota *

Correctional Facility, Oak Park *

Heights; Dr. Stephen Craane, *

Correctional Medical Services; Dr. *

Dayton Burkholder, Correctional *

Medical Services; Dr. Worlali M. *

Nutakor, Correctional Medical *

Services; Dr. Ayodele Ayedun, *

Correctional Medical Services; Dr. *

Steven Allen, Minnesota Department *

of Corrections; Colleen Youngquist, *

Mail Room Supervisor, Minnesota *

Correctional Facility, Oak Park *

Appellate Case: 05-2390 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2006 Entry ID: 2049314
1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin

L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

-2-

Heights; Jane Doe, R.N., Minnesota *

Correctional Facility, Oak Park *

Heights; Mary McComb, Minnesota *

Correctional Facility, all defendants are *

sued in both individual and official *

capacities while acting under the color *

of State laws, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 5, 2006

Filed: May 26, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this interlocutory appeal, Minnesota inmate “Reverend Beck, Ph.D.”

challenges the district court’s1

 denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order

(TRO) and preliminary injunction. We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a

TRO. See Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112-13 (8th Cir. 1994). As to the

preliminary injunction, the district court set forth the relevant factors and determined

Beck had not met his burden of showing that a preliminary injunction should issue.

See Dataphase Sys. Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113-14 (8th Cir. 1981) (en

banc) (to determine whether preliminary injunctive relief is warranted, court must

balance threat of irreparable harm to movant, harm to nonmoving party should

injunction issue, likelihood of success on merits, and public interest). We conclude

Appellate Case: 05-2390 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2006 Entry ID: 2049314
-3-

that the court did not abuse its discretion, clearly err in its fact finding, or make an

error of law. See Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc. v. Hennkens, 301 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir.

2002). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2390 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/26/2006 Entry ID: 2049314