Eckard v. Langdon et al

Filing 40

ORDER ADOPTING 21 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's objections (Dkt. No. 22 ) are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 15 ) is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

GABRIEL ALLEN ECKARD,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C19-0579-JCC
ORDER

v.
ALTA LANGDON, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 22) to the report

16

and recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Mary A. Theiler, United States Magistrate

17

Judge (Dkt. No. 21). Having thoroughly considered the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the

18

relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby finds and ORDERS as

19

follows:

20

The R&R sets forth the facts relevant to Plaintiff’s motion, and the Court will not repeat

21

them here. (See Dkt. No. 21.) Plaintiff is detained at the Snohomish County Jail and brings a pro

22

se § 1983 claim against Defendants for allegedly denying him mental health care in violation of

23

his constitutional rights. (Dkt. No. 5.) Plaintiff now moves for a preliminary injunction directing

24

Defendants to provide him needed mental health care. (Dkt. No. 15.) The R&R observes the bare

25

and conclusory nature of Plaintiff’s argument for a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 21 at 3.)

26

The R&R concludes that although Plaintiff asserts viable constitutional claims, he has not
ORDER
C19-0579-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

demonstrated in the instant motion that he is likely to prevail on the merits of those claims or that

2

the balance of hardships is clearly in his favor. (Id. at 4.) Therefore, the R&R recommends

3

denying Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (Id.)

4

Although Plaintiff timely filed objections, he does not challenge the bulk of the R&R’s

5

findings and conclusions. His sole substantive objection is that his serious mental illness, as

6

documented in an unsigned psychiatrist’s report attached to his reply brief, demonstrates that

7

Plaintiff is entitled to mental health treatment. (See Dkt. Nos. 19 at 3–35, 22 at 2.) The Court

8

agrees with the R&R’s conclusion that the psychiatrist’s report addresses Plaintiff’s mental

9

health condition, not what treatment Plaintiff requires. (See Dkt. No. 21 at 3.) And Plaintiff does

10

not object to the R&R’s conclusion that he has not established a likelihood of irreparable harm,

11

that the balance of hardships tips in his favor, and that a preliminary injunction in is in the public

12

interest, as required to merit injunctive relief. (See Dkt. No. 22); Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.

13

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Thus, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is entitled to

14

the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Therefore, the Court

15

hereby ORDERS as follows:

16

1. Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 22) are OVERRULED;

17

2. The report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 21) is ADOPTED;

18

3. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED without

19
20

prejudice; and
4. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, to counsel for Defendants,

21

and to Judge Theiler.

22

DATED this 6th day of January 2020.

A

23
24
25

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
ORDER
C19-0579-JCC
PAGE - 2