Francis v. Hammond et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 29 Defendants' Motion to Stay, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
SHAWN FRANCIS,

CASE NO. C12-6023 RBL-JRC

9
Plaintiff,
10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
STAY PENDING APPEAL

v.
11

[DKT. #29]
STEVEN HAMMOND, et al.,

12
Defendants.
13
14
15
16
17
18

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay [Dkt. #29] this
Court’s Order [Dkt. #25] Adopting Magistrate Judge Creatura’s Report and Recommendation
[Dkt. #22] and enjoining Defendants to provide medical services to the Plaintiff. The
Defendants have appealed the Order and now ask this Court to stay its Order pending that
appeal, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c):

19

21

While an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order or final judgment that
grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore,
or grant an injunction on terms for bond or other terms that secure the opposing
party's rights.

22

The following factors regulate the decision whether or not to stay an injunction pending

20

23 appeal:
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY
PENDING APPEAL - 1

1

(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on

2 the merits;
3

(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;

4

(3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the

5 proceeding; and
6

(4) where the public interest lies.

7 Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776(1987) (citations omitted). This standard is, of course,
8 comparable to the standard against which the Court’s injunction was initially issued:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to
demonstrate “that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities
tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”
Stormans, Inc. v Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (2009) (Citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S 7 (2008)).
Plaintiff Francis met his burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits
and of the remaining factors warranting the injunction in the first place. Defendants have not
and cannot make the reverse showing on any factor in seeking a stay. Importantly, the potential
harm to Francis in not getting the medical procedure outweighs the potential harm to the
Defendants in incurring its cost unnecessarily. For the reasons outlined in the Report and
Recommendation, the Defendants’ Motion to Stay enforcement of the Court’s Injunction
pending appeal is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated this 10th day of June, 2013.

22

A

23

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24

[DKT. #29] - 2