No. 92-205 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1992 

GARY L. QUIGG, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

-vsJACK McCORMICK, et al. , 

Defendants and Respondents. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Third Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Powell, 

The Honorable Ted L. Mizner, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Gary L. Quigg, Pro Se, Deer Lodge, Montana 

For Respondents: 

James B. Obie and David L. Ohler, Department of 

Corrections and Human Services, Helena, Montana 

D Submitted on Briefs: October 8, 1992 

 decided: November 12, 1992 

Filed: I\!OVP 2 1992 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MOIIITANA 

' Clerk 
Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Gary Quigg appeals from an order of the District Court for the 

Third Judicial District, Powell County, denying his application far 

a preliminary injunction. We affirm. 

On December 31, 1991, Quigg filed a complaint alleging, among 

other things, that respondents Jack McCormick and others at the 

Montana State Prisonviolated unspecified provisions ofthe Montana 

Code Annotated and the Administrative Rules of Montana in 

administering assessment/evaluation testing for purposes of 

determining appropriate treatment programs. Be sought injunctive 

relief, a declaratory judgment and monetary damages. On the same 

date, he filed a motion for preliminary injunction requesting the 

court to restrain respondents from: (1) continuing to make 

recommendations for treatment programs based on current assessment 

and evaluation procedures; (2) operating treatment programs under 

current procedures for placements in those programs; and (3) 

conducting treatment programs not in compliance with applicable 

statutes and regulations. The District Court held a show cause 

hearing on issuance of the preliminary injunction on January 30, 

1992, and entered its order denying Quiggls application for 

preliminary injunction on February 21, 1992. 

A determination on issuing a preliminary injunction lies 

within the discretion of the district court. We will not interfere 

with the court's exercise of that discretion absent manifest abuse. 

Porter v. K & S Partnership (l98l), 192 Mont. 175, 181, 627 P.2d 

836, 839. 
Section 27-19-201, MCA, specifies the circumstances under 

which a preliminary injunction may be granted. In addition, we 

have determined that an applicant must establish a prima facie case 

ox show that it is at least doubtful whether he will suffer 

irreparable injury before such time as his rights can be litigated 

fully in order to meet the threshold requirement for a preliminary 

injunction; only where either showing is made are courts inclined 

to issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo. 

Porter, 627 P.2d at 839. 

The District Court did not find the existence of any of the 

statutory criteria for issuance of a preliminary injunction. We 

agree. Nor does it appear, based on the record before us, that 

Quigg met the threshold requirement set forth in Porter which might 

incline a court to issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the 

status quo. We hold that the ~istrict Court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Quigg's application for preliminary 

injunction. 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result 

to Montana Law Week, State Reporter and West Publishing Company. 

Affirmed. 
We concur: 4-