IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

FRANK E. VOTH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARK NOOTH, et al., 

Defendants. 

MOSMAN, Judge. 

Case No. 2:14-cv-01855-AC 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Snake River Correctional 

Institution {"SRCI"), brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's 

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (#14). Plaintiff's Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order seeks injunctive relief for more 

than ten days, thus it is best characterized as a Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction. See Fed. R. Civ. 65 (b) (2) {temporary 

restraining orders are generally allowed for no more than ten 

days) . Moreover, the Court converts Plaintiff's motion to a 

1 - ORDER -

Case 2:14-cv-01855-AC Document 20 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 3
Motion for Preliminary Injunction on the basis that counsel for 

Defendants was given notice and an opportunity to respond to the 

motion. 

Plaintiff alleges he was falsely accused of misconduct and 

placed in administrative segregation. As a result, Plaintiff 

moves for an order restraining the Defendants from "violating 

Plaintiff's 1st Amendment Right, Retaliating, and inflicting 

cruel, and unusual punishment upon Plaintiff, threatening to have 

Plaintiff physically injuried~[sic], and repeatedly, put in DSU as 

further retaliation for filing this civil action." 

A preliminary injunction is appropriate if the moving party 

demonstrates either: (1) a combination of probable success on the 

merits and the possibility of irreparable harm; or (2) that 

serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips in 

its favor. LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Homes of Nevada, 434 

F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 2006). These two formulations represent 

two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of 

irreparable harm increases as the probability of success 

decreases. Id. A request for a mandatory injunction seeking 

relief well beyond the status quo is disfavored and shall not be 

granted unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party. 

Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1319-20 (9th Cir. 

1994) . 

2 - ORDER -

Case 2:14-cv-01855-AC Document 20 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 3
The claim at issue in Plaintiff's request for temporary 

restraining order is not at issue in his Complaint. Instead, 

Pl ntiff's Complaint alleges cruel and unusual punishment through 

the infliction of physical injuries. As such, preliminary 

injunctive relief is not appropriate. See Winter v. Natural Res. 

Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (plaintiff seeking 

preliminary injunction must demonstrate that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits); LGS Architects, Inc., 434 F.3d at 1155 

(requiring at least some chance of success on the merits to 

justify a preliminary injunction). 

CONCLUSION 

The Court converts Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary 

Rest ning Order {#14) into a Motion for Preliminary Injunction 

and DENIES relief on the motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this ~::/- day of February, 2015. 

3 - ORDER - \\ord.local\shares\Shares\Acosta Share\14-1855voth0217tro.wpd 

Case 2:14-cv-01855-AC Document 20 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 3