Alan Cole Onstad v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-2868
___________________________
Alan Cole Onstad
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Larry Mays, Deputy
Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Danny Burl, Warden, East Arkansas
Regional Unit, ADC; Todd Ball, Deputy Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit,
ADC; Dexter Payne, Deputy Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC;
Raymond Naylor, Disciplinary Hearing Administrator, Arkansas Department of
Correction; John Doe, Disciplinary Hearing Judges, Arkansas Department of Correction
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena
____________
Submitted: November 7, 2013
Filed: November 14, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

Arkansas inmate Alan Onstad appeals the district court’s interlocutory order1
denying his motion seeking a preliminary injunction. Upon careful review, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive
relief. See Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Dawson, 725 F.3d 885, 893 (8th Cir. 2013)
(standard of review); see also Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995) (in
prison context, request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution
because judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with complex and
intractable problems of prison administration).2
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Onstad’s motion
for oral argument.
______________________________
The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the1
Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District
of Arkansas.
We further note that, to the extent the district court also denied a request for2
a temporary restraining order, we lack jurisdiction to review that denial. See Hamm
v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112-13 (8th Cir. 1994) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to
review denial of temporary restraining order).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --