He DID treat it as a request for injunctive relief. He ruled that because the Schindlers did not show reasonable possibility of winning their suit he wasn't going to grant the relief.
But how could the Tampa Clintoid judge refuse to hold a new trial simply because he thought that the Schindlers could not prevail. The law says there should be a new trial without prejudice. It does not say that the judge may not have the trial if he pleases. To me, that would be grounds for the appeals court to give relief (tube re-insertion), and sending the case back to trial to Tampa. And the Tampa trial would be by jury: so this judge might not be able to dictate death for Terri.
You did not read the legislation. He based his decision that they would lose on the trial court record, but the legislation stipulates the procedure that he is to follow - namely to try the cases de novo - which is not a 2 hr preliminary hearing - but a multi-day hearing with expert witnesses, etc.
The trial court erred in chosing to credit that which they were expressly forbidden from crediting - namely the acts of the state to that point.