1 - ORDER

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

BURL WOODS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SAIF CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 6:16-cv-00380-MO 

ORDER 

 

MOSMAN, District Judge. 

 This prisoner civil rights case comes before the court on 

plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (#22). 

Plaintiff filed the Motion on August 3, 2016. The State timely 

filed its Response on August 25, 2016, and plaintiff did not 

file any reply brief (which was due September 12, 2016). 

Plaintiff asserts that the oath of offices for Administrative 

Law Judges violates the Constitution. He also asserts that the 

administrative law process is unconstitutional as the courts 

Case 6:16-cv-00380-MO Document 30 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 3
 2 - ORDER

that preside over claims against state agencies do not provide 

fair proceedings. He believes this court should enjoin the 

Office of Administrative Hearings from holding a hearing in his 

case involving a workplace injury he suffered at his prison. 

 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must 

establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is 

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 

relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that 

an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A 

plaintiff may also qualify for a preliminary injunction by 

showing that there are serious questions going to the merits of 

his claim and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in his 

favor, so long as the other Winter factors are also met. 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127. 1134-

35 (9th Cir. 2011). 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). 

 It appears that plaintiff’s contested case hearing was held 

in August while briefing was still open on his Motion for 

Case 6:16-cv-00380-MO Document 30 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 3
3 - ORDER

Preliminary Injunction. In this regard, his Motion is now moot. 

In any event, plaintiff fails to demonstrate a likelihood of 

success on the oath of Administrative Law Judges. 

Moreover, one of the primary bases of plaintiff’s Complaint 

is that defendants have refused to provide him with a contested 

case hearing in a timely manner. Plaintiff cannot now alter his 

claim within his Motion for Preliminary Injunction to state that 

the hearing he requested upon filing his Complaint should now be 

enjoined as fundamentally unfair. Only those issues in 

plaintiff’s Complaint may form the basis for a preliminary 

injunction. 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 of 

his claim). For all of these reasons, plaintiff’s Motion for 

Preliminary Injunctive Relief is denied. 

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#22) is 

denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 16th day of September, 2016. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN 

United States District Judge 

Case 6:16-cv-00380-MO Document 30 Filed 09/16/16 Page 3 of 3