UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CLARENCE WESLEY HURT III, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

YAMHILL COUNTY SHERIFF'S 

DEPARTMENT, et al., 

Defendants. 

AIKEN, District Judge. 

3:15-cv-149-TC 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, an inmate in the Yamhill County Jail filed a 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his 

constitutional rights arising out of the conditions of his 

confinement. Plaintiff now seeks an order restraining 

defendants from housing him "in restrictive isolation without 

due process for misconduct." Motion to Restrain and Order 

(#6). 

In order to obtain preliminary relief in the Ninth 

Circuit, a party must meet one of two alternative tests. 

Requests for temporary restraining orders are governed by the 

1 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00149-TC Document 10 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 4
same general standards that govern the issuance of a 

preliminary injunction. See, New Motor Vehicle Board v. Orrin 

W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345, 1347, n. 2 (1977); Los Angles 

Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States District Court, 650 F.2d 

1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981). Under the "traditional" standard, 

preliminary relief may be granted if the court finds: (1) the 

moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the preliminary 

relief is not granted; (2) the moving party enjoys a 

likelihood of success on the merits; (3) the balance of 

potential harm favors the moving party; and (4) the 

advancement of the public interest favors granting injunctive 

relief. Burlington N.R.R. v. Department of Revenue, 934 F.2d 

1064, 1074 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Under the alternative test, the moving party may meet its 

burden by showing either (1) probable success on the merits 

and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) that serious 

questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply 

in the moving party's favor. Id.; Associated Gen. Contractors 

of Cal., Inc. v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 

1410 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 985 (1992); see 

also A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 293 F.3d 1004, 1013 

(9th Cir. 2001). These formulations "represent two points on 

a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable 

harm increases as the probability of success decreases." 

2 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00149-TC Document 10 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 4
United States v. Odessa Union Warehouse Co-Op, 833 F.2d 172, 

17 4 (9th Cir. 1987) . The Ninth Circuit has suggested that the 

two standards amount to "a continuum in which the required 

showing of harm varies inversely with the required showing of 

meritoriousness." San Diego Comm. v. Governing Board, 7 90 F. 2d 

1471, 1473 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1986). The parties must demonstrate, 

"an irreducible minimum," that they have a fair chance of 

success on the merits. Brenda v. Grand Lodge of International 

Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 584 F.2d 308, 

315 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. dismissed, 441 U.S. 937 (1979); 

Committee of Cent. American Refugees v. I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 

1437 (9th Cir. 1986). This is so because the probability of 

success on the merits is the critical standard in determining 

the propriety of preliminary relief. Lancor v. Lebanon 

Housing Authority, 760 F.2d 361 (1st Cir. 1985). Also, under 

any formulation, the party seeking preliminary relief must 

demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of 

irreparable injury. Oakland Tribune v. Chronicle Pub. Co., 

7 6 2 F . 2 d 13 7 4 , 13 7 6 ( 9th C i r . 19 8 5 ) . 

Additionally, "[u]nder the Prison Litigation Reform Act 

(PLRA), prisoner litigants must satisfy additional 

requirements when seeking preliminary injunctive relief 

against prison officials[.}" Lunford v. Bannister, 2009 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 26247, 19-20 (D. Nev. Feb 10, 2009) (denying a pro 

3 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00149-TC Document 10 Filed 03/11/15 Page 3 of 4
se inmate plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction to 

compel surgery for a non-life-threatening condition and 

continuing care while incarcerated) . Under the PLRA, 

Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, 

extend no further than necessary to correct the harm 

the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be 

the least intrusive means necessary to correct that 

harm. The court shall give substantial weight to any 

adverse impact on public safety or the operation of 

a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary 

relief and shall respect the principles of comity 

set out in paragraph ( 1) (B) in tailoring any 

preliminary relief. 

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a) (2). 

The Ninth Circuit has characterized this section's effect 

as to operate "simultaneously to restrict the equity 

jurisdiction of federal courts and to protect the bargaining 

power of prison administrators - no longer may courts grant or 

approve relief that binds prison administrators to do more 

that the constitution requires." Gilmore v. People of the 

State of California, 220 F.3.d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2000). 

In this case, plaintiff has not met any of the criteria 

for preliminary injunctive relief discussed above. Plaintiff's 

"Motion to Restrain and Order" (#6) is denied. 

DATED this 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

4 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00149-TC Document 10 Filed 03/11/15 Page 4 of 4