United States District Court, D. Montana, Billings Division
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
P. WATTERS United States District Judge
Jerri Joette Tillett brought this action seeking to stop
alleged ongoing malfeasance by Defendants Bureau of Land
Management ("BLM"), Interior Board of Land Appeals
("IBLA"), and Department of the Interior
("DOI") (collectively, "Defendants"),
with respect to the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range
("PMWHR"). Specifically, Tillett seeks to prevent
the Defendants from implementing a prescribed burn in the
PMWHR "for at least this fall schedule, in the year
2016." (Doc. 1-1 at 23). Tillett also seeks to prevent
the Defendants from the "utilization of poisons on the
PMWHR." (Doc. 10 at 2).
before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Timothy
Cavan's Findings and Recommendations on Tillett's
Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 17). Judge Cavan
recommends that this Court deny Tillett's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction because she is unlikely to succeed on
the merits and is unlikely to suffer irreparable harm. (Doc.
17 at 6-7). Tillett filed timely objections to the Findings
and Recommendations. (Doc. 23).
Statement of facts
does not object to the Statement of Facts contained in Judge
Cavan's Findings and Recommendations. Judge Cavan's
Statement of Fact are therefore adopted in full.
Standard of review A district court reviews de novo
any part of a Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations to which there has been proper objections. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic
remedy." Munafv. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689
(2008) (quotations omitted). To obtain a preliminary
injunction, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is likely to
succeed on the merits; (2) she is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3)
the balance of equities tips in her favor; and (4) an
injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat.
Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Cavan recommends denying Tillett's Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction for two reasons. First, Judge Cavan
recommends Tillett will not suffer irreparable harm before
the Court can issue a decision on the merits because the
earliest the prescribed burn will take place is September
2017. (Doc. 17 at 6). Second, Judge Cavan recommends Tillett
is unlikely to succeed on the merits of her poisons claim
because this Court already decided the issue of poisons in
the PMWHR adversely to Tillett. (Doc. 17 at 7 (citing
Tillett v. BLM, et ai, CV 14-73-BLG-SPW (D. Mont.
(Doc. 35 at 15))).
objects. First, Tillett argues the Defendants cannot be
trusted to delay implementation of the prescribed burn. (Doc.
23 at 6). Second, Tillett argues the Court's prior order
was based on lies by the Defendants. (Doc. 23 at 7). The
Court agrees with Judge Cavan.
Tillett has not shown she will likely suffer
irreparable harm before the Court can issue a decision on the
mere possibility of irreparable harm is insufficient to
justify an injunction. Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v.
Florida Entertainment Management,Inc., 736
F.3d 1239, 1249 (9th Cir. 2013). Instead, a party seeking a
preliminary injunction must ...