Troupe v. Pease et al

Filing 153

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, denying 139 Motion for TRO. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (LR, Case Administrator)**4 PAGES, PRINT ALL**(David Troupe, Prisoner ID: 765714)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

No.

DAVID TROUPE,

4:15-CV-05090-EFS

8
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

9
v.
10
CHARLES PEASE, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13

Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff’s Motion

14

for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 139.

15

set an expedited schedule for this Motion. See ECF No. 140.

16

reasons set forth below, the Court denies the Motion.

The Court previously
For the

17

Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent any

18

Defendant from having physical contact with Plaintiff, his property,

19

his legal documents, or his grievances until the completion of this

20

case.

21

Richard Morgan, Charles Pease, Jason Kaehler, and other unidentified

22

individuals have threatened Plaintiff in order to get him to withdraw

23

his lawsuits in this Court. See ECF No. 139 at 2.

24

claims he was physically assaulted by Defendant Hale while housed at

25

Washington State Penitentiary (WSP) from September 2016 to January

26

2017. ECF No. 139 at 2.

In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants William Hale,

ORDER - 1

Plaintiff also

1

Plaintiff also seeks a court order preventing his transfer out

2

of Stafford Creek Corrections Center (Stafford Creek). ECF No. 139 at

3

10.

4

Stafford Creek to WSP on August 7, 2017, and argues that he is doing

5

well at Stafford Creek and there exist “no legal grounds to support

6

keeping [him] at WSP.” ECF No. 139 at 5, 11.

Plaintiff states that he is scheduled to be transferred from

I.

7
8
9

APPLICABLE LAW

The Ninth Circuit has noted that the analysis for issuance of a
temporary

restraining

order

is

“substantially

identical”

to

the

10

analysis for issuance of a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’l

11

Sales Co. v. John D. Brush and Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir.

12

2001).

13

and a preliminary injunction are the duration of the injunction and

14

the availability of argument prior to issuance of the injunction.

15

Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 804 (9th Cir. 2002).

16

temporary

17

argument is not required prior to issuance of the order. Fed. R. Civ.

18

P. 65.

19

relief, so the Court will treat the request as one for a preliminary

20

injunction.

21

The primary differences between a temporary restraining order

restraining

order

may

last

no

longer

than

14

days

A
and

In this case, Plaintiff is requesting immediate, but ongoing

“A

plaintiff

seeking

a

preliminary

injunction

must

establish

22

that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to

23

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

24

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in

25

the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S.

26

7, 20 (2008).

ORDER - 2

Under this inquiry, “courts must balance the competing

1

claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the

2

granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Id. at 24 (internal

3

quotation marks omitted).
When

4

conducting

the

analysis

for

issuance

of

a

preliminary

5

injunction, courts must be mindful that injunctive relief is “to be

6

used sparingly, and only in a clear and plain case.” See Rizzo v.

7

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 (1976).

8

it is given the “widest latitude in the dispatch of its own internal

9

affairs.” Id. at 378–79.
concerns

may

If a government agency is involved,

Further, if a state agency is involved,

10

federalism

strengthen

11

resulting injunctive relief must avoid unnecessary disruption to the

12

state agency’s normal course of proceeding. See Gomez v. Vernon, 255

13

F.3d 1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted).

14

such, prison administrators must be given “wide-ranging deference in

15

the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their

16

judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to

17

maintain institutional security.” See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,

18

547 (1979).
II.

19

these

considerations,

and

any

As

ANALYSIS

20

Here, the Washington State Department of Corrections developed a

21

Custody Facility Plan after consulting with Plaintiff and conducting

22

an

23

Plaintiff’s claims in this case — as well as the allegations contained

24

in his current Motion — are supported by little more than his own bare

25

assertions.

26

will be subjected to assault and threats unless the Court grants the

official

ORDER - 3

review.

See

generally

ECF

Nos. 144–147.

Thus

far,

Plaintiff asks the Court to take him at his word that he

1

extraordinary relief that he requests.

2

expressed no such reservations just last month when he stated that he

3

was fully willing to be transferred to WSP if it meant he would no

4

longer be in the Intensive Management Unit. See ECF No. 144 at 3; 145

5

at 3–4.

6

proceedings to manipulate his prison placement. See Troupe v. Suckow,

7

No. 2:13-CV-05038-EFS (E.D. Wash. 2016) (containing multiple motions

8

by

9

considerations, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a

10

likelihood of success on the merits of his claims, irreparable injury,

11

or that the balance of hardships tips in his favor.

12

Notably, however, Plaintiff

And Plaintiff has a history of trying to use his legal

Plaintiff

regarding

Accordingly,

IT

his

IS

prison

HEREBY

placement).

ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s

Given

Motion

these

for

13

Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 139, is CONSTRUED as a Motion for

14

Preliminary Injunction and is DENIED.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this

Order and provide copies to Plaintiff and all counsel.
DATED this

_ 4th

day of August 2017.

18
__s/Edward F. Shea___
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Q:\EFS\Civil\2015\15-CV-5090;Troupe v Pease.Deny.TRO.LC1.docx

ORDER - 4