Alan Onstad v. Ray Hobbs
Alan Onstad v. Ray Hobbs
Opinion
Arkansas inmate Alan Onstad appeals the district court’s 1 interlocutory order 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 *730 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 the 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 for 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).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.