April 27 2010
DA 09-0680
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2010 MT 89N
DOUGLAS R. BOESE,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
BRUCE MILLER, et al.,
Respondents and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Third Judicial District,
In and For the County of Powell, Cause No. DV 09-52
Honorable Ray Dayton, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Douglas R. Boese, self represented, Deer Lodge, Montana
For Appellee:
Brenda K. Elias, Special Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 8, 2010
Decided: April 27, 2010
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Michael E Wheat delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and
its case title, Supreme Court cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Douglas R. Boese (Boese) appeals from the order of the Third Judicial District Court,
Powell County, denying his motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining
order (TRO). We affirm.
¶3 The issues on appeal are whether the District Court erred when it denied Boese’s
motion for a preliminary injunction or TRO, and whether the court erred when it failed to
hold a hearing on Boese’s motion.
¶4 On October 7, 2009, Boese filed an amended complaint alleging violation of his
constitutional rights, negligence, conversion, trespass to chattel, assault, mistreatment, and
intimidation. The Defendants are employed at the Montana State Prison and serve as
correctional officers. Boese claimed that the Defendants had violated Montana Department
of Corrections policy, improperly confiscated Boese’s personal property, and retaliated
against Boese for filing a grievance.
¶5 Boese filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction or TRO approximately one
month later. On December 10, 2009, the District Court issued an order denying Boese’s
motion. Boese appeals.
2
¶6 “District courts are vested with a high degree of discretion to maintain the status quo
through injunctive relief.” Cole v. St. James Healthcare, 2008 MT 453, ¶ 9, 348 Mont. 68,
199 P.3d 810. We refuse to disturb a district court’s decision to grant or deny a preliminary
injunction unless a manifest abuse of discretion has been shown. Sweet Grass Farms v.
Board of County Com’rs, 2000 MT 147, ¶ 20, 300 Mont. 66, 2 P.3d 825. A manifest abuse
of discretion is one that is obvious, evident, or unmistakable. Shammel v. Canyon Resources
Corp., 2003 MT 372, ¶ 12, 319 Mont. 132, 82 P.3d 912.
¶7 The District Court in this case found that Boese had failed to establish a prima facie
case for preliminary injunctive relief. The court determined that Boese “has not shown a
failure of the Prison’s grievance and review process beyond speculation.” Specifically, the
court concluded that Boese had failed to demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable injury
without the issuance of a TRO.
¶8 We agree. Boese has failed to demonstrate that he will suffer irreparable injury before
his rights can be fully litigated. We also conclude that Boese has failed to demonstrate on
appeal that the District Court manifestly abused its discretion. The District Court did not err
when it denied Boese’s motion for a preliminary injunction or TRO.
¶9 We also conclude that the District Court was not required to hold a hearing on
Boese’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief because Boese failed to establish a prima
facie case for injunctive relief. A district court need not hold a hearing unless it intends to
grant the order for preliminary injunctive relief. See § 27-19-301, MCA (“Before granting
an injunction order, the court or judge shall make an order requiring cause to be shown, at a
3
specified time and place, why the injunction should not be granted . . . .” (Emphasis
added.)).
¶10 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our
1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, which provides for memorandum
opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us that the appeal is
without merit. The legal issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law, which the
District Court correctly interpreted.
¶11 Affirmed.
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
4