Barbara Ann Miller and Steven L. Miller-Hart v. State of Oregon et al.

D. Oregon

Barbara Ann Miller and Steven L. Miller-Hart v. State of Oregon et al.

DecidedFebruary 23, 2026

Docket3:26-cv-00220

StatusUnknown

This text of Barbara Ann Miller and Steven L. Miller-Hart v. State of Oregon et al. (Barbara Ann Miller and Steven L. Miller-Hart v. State of Oregon et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barbara Ann Miller and Steven L. Miller-Hart v. State of Oregon et al., (D. Or. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

BARBARA ANN MILLER and STEVEN L. Case No. 3:26-cv-00220-SB MILLER-HART, OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF OREGON et al.,

Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge. Plaintiffs Barbara Ann Miller and Steven L. Miller-Hart (“Plaintiffs”), self-represented litigants, filed this civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) action against Defendants State of Oregon, Oregon Department of Human Services (“DHS”), DHS Adult Protective Services, Bradley Veo Timmons, Amerititle Escrow Company, Hood River County, Oregon, Diamond Fruit Growers, Inc., and Does 1-50, seeking $60 million in damages and other relief. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On February 23, 2026, Plaintiffs filed original and amended emergency motions for a temporary restraining order. (Pl.’s Mot. TRO, ECF No. 8; Pl.’s Am. Mot. TRO, ECF No. 9.) /// For the reasons discussed in the Court’s Order to Show Cause, the Court has concluded that Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See Order Show Cause, ECF No. 10.) For the same reasons discussed in the Order to Show Cause, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (“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.”) (citations omitted).' The Court further finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated in their motion that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, and the balance of equities and public interest do not support emergency injunctive relief here. See id. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ amended emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 9), without prejudice to refiling the motion following the Court’s resolution of the Order to Show Cause if this case proceeds, and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs original emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 8). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 23rd day of February 2026. Mii United States District Judge

! See also Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that the standard for granting a temporary restraining order is “substantially identical” to the standard for granting a preliminary injunction). PAGE 2 — OPINION AND ORDER

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

BARBARA ANN MILLER and STEVEN L. Case No. 3:26-cv-00220-SB MILLER-HART, OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF OREGON et al.,

Defendants.

Michael H. Simon, District Judge. Plaintiffs Barbara Ann Miller and Steven L. Miller-Hart (“Plaintiffs”), self-represented litigants, filed this civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) action against Defendants State of Oregon, Oregon Department of Human Services (“DHS”), DHS Adult Protective Services, Bradley Veo Timmons, Amerititle Escrow Company, Hood River County, Oregon, Diamond Fruit Growers, Inc., and Does 1-50, seeking $60 million in damages and other relief. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On February 23, 2026, Plaintiffs filed original and amended emergency motions for a temporary restraining order. (Pl.’s Mot. TRO, ECF No. 8; Pl.’s Am. Mot. TRO, ECF No. 9.) /// For the reasons discussed in the Court’s Order to Show Cause, the Court has concluded that Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See Order Show Cause, ECF No. 10.) For the same reasons discussed in the Order to Show Cause, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (“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.”) (citations omitted).' The Court further finds that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated in their motion that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of temporary or preliminary injunctive relief, and the balance of equities and public interest do not support emergency injunctive relief here. See id. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ amended emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 9), without prejudice to refiling the motion following the Court’s resolution of the Order to Show Cause if this case proceeds, and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs original emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 8). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 23rd day of February 2026. Mii United States District Judge

! See also Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that the standard for granting a temporary restraining order is “substantially identical” to the standard for granting a preliminary injunction). PAGE 2 — OPINION AND ORDER

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Barbara Ann Miller and Steven L. Miller-Hart v. State of Oregon et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbara-ann-miller-and-steven-l-miller-hart-v-state-of-oregon-et-al-ord-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack