Lawson v. Carney et al

Filing 26

ORDER DENYING ECF No. 2 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND DENYING AS MOOT ECF No. 23 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SERVE DEFENDANT SABATINO. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. Hutton. (TR, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
8
9

GEOFFREY R. LAWSON, SR.,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
13

Case No. 2:15-CV-00184-JPH

BRENT CARNEY, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND DENYING AS
MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO SERVE DEFENDANT
SABATINO

17
18

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Airway Heights Corrections Center, moved

19
20

for a preliminary injunction. He alleges he cannot eat the kosher diet

21
22

provided to him because it contains soy and he is allergic to it. ECF No. 2.

23

He appears pro se. Defendants Carney, Knie, Luce and Murphy,

24
25
26
27

represented by Assistant Attorney General Brian J. Considine and Assistant
Attorney General Jerry P. Scharosch, have responded. ECF No. 16.
[Defendant Sabatino has not been served, ECF No. 16 at n.1, but Assistant

28

ORDER 1

1
2

Attorney General Jerry P. Scharosch has appeared on Sabatino’s behalf,
making Plaintiff’s motion to serve Sabatino, ECF No. 23, moot.] Plaintiff’s

3
4
5

request for an extension of time for filing a reply was granted and any reply
was due October 27, 2015. ECF No. 18, 19. Plaintiff untimely filed a reply

6

on November 5, 2015. The Court considered the untimely filed reply. ECF
7
8
9

No. 23. The Court decided the motion on the date signed below. After
considering the matter,

10
11
12

IT IS ORDERED:
The Court denies the motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 2, at

13

this time. Presently Plaintiff fails to show he is likely to prevail on the
14
15

merits of his claim of a food allergy, but it is unclear. At this time it is also

16

unclear whether he suffers irreparable injury as a result of receiving kosher

17
18
19

meals. And at this stage it is unclear whether equity and public interest
warrant the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a preliminary injunction.

20

See Mazuek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)(citation omitted).
21
22
23

Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants are
ordered to arrange for the Plaintiff to be medically tested for any soy or

24
25
26
27

other food allergies and provide those results to the Plaintiff within 30
days of this Order. If said medical testing reveals a soy or other food
allergy, Plaintiff is granted leave to seek further relief from the Court.

28

ORDER 2

DATED this 12th day of November, 2015.

1
2

S/ James P. Hutton

3

JAMES P. HUTTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER 3