Harris v. U.S., 84-1139
| Decision Date | 11 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1139,84-1139 |
| Citation | 745 F.2d 535 |
| Parties | Harold J. HARRIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John Wesley Hall, Jr., for appellant.
George W. Proctor, U.S. Atty., and Fletcher Jackson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before BRIGHT, JOHN R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
Harold Harris, a captain in the United States Air Force, brought suit in the United States Court of Claims seeking backpay, correction of records, reinstatement of rank, discharge of decertification from the Air Force's Personal Reliability Program, and a preliminary injunction barring his discharge from the Air Force. After the Court of Claims ruled that it lacked the power to issue a preliminary injunction, 4 Cl.Ct. 418, Harris filed a complaint requesting injunctive relief with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The district court, 1 after analyzing Harris' motion for a preliminary injunction under the factors set forth by this court in Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir.1981), denied relief. Harris appeals. We affirm.
Harris was discharged from the Air Force 2 on January 31, 1984, under its "up or out" policy after he had twice been passed over for a promotion to the rank of major. He contends that the denial of a promotion to him rested upon Officer Effectiveness Reports (OER) in which his superior officers had unjustifiably downgraded his rating in retaliation for his filing a complaint of racial discrimination and unequal treatment with the Equal Opportunity and Treatment Program at Hickham Air Force Base. Harris alleges that the Air Force neglected to follow its own regulations regarding reevaluation of OERs and that a reevaluation of his OER would have detected the unjustified downgrading of his rating and corrected it. The essence of his complaint is that his discharge was unlawful because it was based upon erroneous evaluations of his performance which the Air Force should have detected.
The Air Force concedes that Harris has the right to bring a claim of unlawful discharge in the Court of Claims. Indeed, his case on the merits is still pending there. The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Harris' motion for a preliminary injunction barring his discharge pending resolution of the case on the merits in the Court of Claims.
This court has enunciated four factors that district courts should consider when hearing motions for preliminary injunctive relief. See Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc). The district court evaluated Harris' motion for preliminary injunctive relief under the Dataphase factors and concluded that Harris had failed to satisfy any of those factors. Accordingly, it denied relief.
Our review of a district court's order denying a preliminary injunction is limited to a determination of whether that court abused its discretion. Chicago Stadium Corp. v. Scallen, 530 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir.1976); see Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 440, 64 S.Ct. 660, 674, 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944). Upon review of the record, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying Harris injunctive relief. The record lacks any adequate showing that Harris will suffer irreparable harm inasmuch as relief can be granted to Harris if he prevails on the merits in the Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
...a grant or denial of preliminary relief is limited to determining whether the district court abused its discretion. Harris v. United States, 745 F.2d 535, 536 (8th Cir.1984); Roberts v. Van Buren Public Schools, 731 F.2d 523, 526 (8th Cir.1984). Moreover, we are bound by the district court'......
-
Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners
...359 U.S. 500, 506-07, 79 S.Ct. 948, 954, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959)); e.g., Dataphase Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d at 114 n. 9; Harris v. United States, 745 F.2d 535, 536 (8th Cir.1984). The district court's factual finding that "Coniston does not intend to operate Gelco, rather it intends to buy Gelco f......
-
CHEMTECH INDUSTRIES v. GOLDMAN FIN. GROUP
...not address the remaining Dataphase requirements in detail. See Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners, 811 F.2d at 418; Harris v. United States, 745 F.2d 535, 536 (8th Cir. 1984). 20. The Court notes, however, that the public interest implicated by plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief does ......
-
In re Abbo
...seeking the injunction, and such an injunction must be vacated on appeal") (citations omitted); see also Harris v. United States, 745 F.2d 535, 536 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (stating that "the absence of a showing of irreparable injury is, in itself, sufficient grounds on which to deny a ......