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

CLERKOFSUPREMECOURT STATE OF MOIIITANA 'ClerkJustice KarlaM. Graydelivered the Opinion of the Court. Gary 

### Quigg appeals froman order of the District Court for the ThirdJudicialDistrict, Powell County,denyinghis 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 StatePrisonviolatedunspecifiedprovisions oftheMontana 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 discretionof the district court. We will not interfere with the court's exercise of thatdiscretionabsentmanifest 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 havedetermined that

### an applicantmust establishaprimafaciecase ox show that it 

### is at least doubtful whether he will suffer irreparable injurybefore 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 Quiggmet the threshold requirement set forth in Porter

### whichmight 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 InternalOperating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and shallbe published by its filingas apublic 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-