Slaughter v. Glebe et al

Filing 164

ORDER denying the 156 Motion for Order to Show Cause, for injunctive relief, and for a telephonic hearing; granting the 160 Motion for Extension of Time. The discovery deadline is extended to 11/27/2017 and the deadline for dispositive motions is extended to 1/26/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura.**5 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Ossie Slaughter, Prisoner ID: 827869)(CMG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

OSSIE LEE SLAUGHTER,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
PATRICK R. GLEBE, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05484-BHS-JRC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND
MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING,
AND GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION

15
16

The District Court has referred this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 to United States

17

Magistrate Judge, J. Richard Creatura. The authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)

18

and (B), and local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4.

19

Plaintiff Ossie Lee Slaughter filed a motion requesting various relief. He asks for

20

injunctive relief in moving him out of the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center (“CRCC”), for an

21

order that defendants show cause why they haven’t provided discovery, for a telephonic hearing

22

regarding those motions, and for an extension of the discovery deadline. However, plaintiff’s

23

request for injunctive relief is unrelated to his underlying claims and he has already received his

24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE, MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND
MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING, AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION - 1

1

requested discovery. Therefore, the Court denies his motion for an order to show cause, motion

2

for injunctive relief, and motion for telephonic hearing. However, noting that plaintiff received

3

the discovery after filing his motion for extension, the Court grants that motion.

4

BACKGROUND

5

Plaintiff Ossie Lee Slaughter is a Washington state prisoner in the custody of the

6

Department of Corrections and is currently housed at the Washington State Penitentiary

7

(“WSP”). Dkt. 154. At the time plaintiff filed his original complaint, he was housed at the

8

Stafford Creek Corrections Center (“SCCC”). Dkt. 109 at 2.

9

Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when he was cited for an

10

infraction on June 11, 2015, and when he was subsequently placed in administrative segregation

11

and transferred to CRCC. Dkt. 109 at 9-16. He filed his original complaint and an application to

12

proceed in forma pauperis on July 14, 2015. Dkt. 1. After filing an answer, defendants filed a

13

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on October 8, 2015. Dkt. 44.

14

Pursuant to a recommendation from this Court, the Honorable Benjamin H. Settle denied

15

the motion with respect to plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, but granted the motion on his

16

other claims, allowing plaintiff leave to amend his Eight Amendment claim and include

17

additional defendants. Dkt. 73 at 2. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2016.

18

Dkt. 109. Defendants filed an answer on March 24, 2017 (Dkt. 146) and the Court entered a

19

pretrial scheduling order on April 3, 2017 (Dkt. 148). The Court set the discovery deadline for

20

September 30, 2017. Dkt. 148. Plaintiff filed this motion for an order to show cause, motion for

21

injunctive relief, and motion for telephonic hearing on August 21, 2017. Dkt. 156. He

22

subsequently filed his motion for an extension on September 18, 2017. Dkt. 160.

23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE, MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND
MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING, AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION - 2

1
2

DISCUSSION
I.

Motion for Order to Show Cause

3

Plaintiff requests an order that defendants show cause why “they have not diligently put

4

forth the effort to either reconcile the matter above and provide Mr. Slaughter with relief or . . .

5

provide Mr. Slaughter with all his overdue request[s] for discovery evidence . . . .” Dkt. 156 at 3.

6

As the Court has already noted in a previous order (Dkt. 153), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

7

7(a) sets forth the pleadings allowed, and the Court cannot order the parties to enter into a

8

settlement or involve itself with settlement negotiations. Therefore, the Court denies plaintiff’s

9

motion on this ground. (Dkt. 156).

10

Further, insofar as plaintiff requests that the Court order defendants to show cause why

11

they have not provided discovery, defendants state they have provided plaintiff with their

12

objections and answers to his sole discovery request. Dkt. 163. However, the record does not

13

indicate what, if any, further discovery materials are still in dispute. Therefore, the Court denies

14

the motion (Dkt. 156) without prejudice. The parties may file a later motion to compel if a

15

discovery dispute arises that cannot be resolved without the Court’s intervention.

16
17

II.

Motion for Injunctive Relief
Plaintiff also requests injunctive relief, asking the court to order that he be transferred out

18

of CRCC and provide a “temporary restraining order” against CRCC and the WSP. Dkt. 156 at

19

2-3. Injunctive relief is intended only to give intermediate relief of the same character that will

20

be granted if the party seeking the injunction should succeed on the underlying claims. A

21

preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that is never awarded as of right.

22

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (citations and quotation omitted). Further, “[w]hen

23

a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not

24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE, MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND
MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING, AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION - 3

1

have the authority to issue an injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr.,

2

910 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015).

3

Plaintiff first requests an order transferring him out of CRCC. However, plaintiff has

4

already been transferred out of CRCC (Dkt. 154), so this aspect of the motion is moot. Further,

5

plaintiff’s other request is unrelated to his underlying claims. Plaintiff asks that a restraining

6

order be entered against CRCC and WSP, seemingly because of harm he faced in those facilities.

7

Dkt. 156 at 3. However, plaintiff’s amended complaint focuses on an alleged wrongful infraction

8

plaintiff received while housed at SCCC and his subsequent placement in administrative

9

segregation. Dkt. 109 at 14-16. Though his complaint alleges actions taken against him while at

10

CRCC (Id. at 16-17), plaintiff’s motion only alleges vindictive action by “defendant’s

11

coworker’s [sic]” rather than action by defendants themselves (Dkt. 160 at 2). Because of this,

12

plaintiff’s motion for an injunction is based on claims not contained in his complaint. Pac.

13

Radiation Oncology, 910 F.3d at 633. Preliminary injunction is not an appropriate remedy here.

14

Therefore, the Court denies plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. Dkt. 156.

15
16

III.

Motion for Telephonic Hearing
Plaintiff has also filed a request to appear telephonically at a hearing regarding his motion

17

for order to show cause. Dkt. 156 at 1. Oral argument is not generally conducted on motions

18

submitted to the Court. See Local Court Rule 7(b)(4). Occasionally, the Court may order oral

19

argument. Id. But here, the Court has not done so, nor does the Court believe oral argument is

20

necessary to rule on plaintiff’s motions. Therefore, the Court denies plaintiff’s motion for a

21

telephonic hearing. Dkt. 156.

22
23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE, MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND
MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING, AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION - 4

1
2

IV.

Motion for Extension
Plaintiff requests an extension both because he is awaiting the Court’s decision on the

3

above noted motions and because he has not yet received discovery responses from defendants.

4

Dkt. 160 at 2, 4. Defendants state that they have, in fact, responded to plaintiff’s discovery

5

request. Dkt. 1-2. They also argue that, because plaintiff has not diligently pursued discovery, his

6

motion for extension should be denied. Dkt. 162. Though defendants have provided plaintiff’s

7

requested discovery, they provided the discovery on September 22, 2017, before the original

8

discovery deadline but five days after plaintiff filed his motion for extension. Dkt. 163. Thus, in

9

the interests of justice, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion for extension. The deadline for

10

discovery is extended to November 27, 2017 and the deadline for dispositive motions is extended

11

to January 26, 2018.

12
13

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s injunctive relief is unrelated to his underlying claim and he has already

14

received his requested discovery. Therefore, the Court denies plaintiff’s motion for an order to

15

show cause, motion for injunctive relief, and motion for a telephonic hearing. Dkt. 156.

16

However, out of an abundance of caution and noting that plaintiff received the discovery after

17

filing his motion, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion for extension. Dkt. 160.

18
19
20

The discovery deadline is extended to November 27, 2017. The deadline for dispositive
motions is extended to January 26, 2018.
Dated this 11th day of October, 2017.

A

21
22

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE, MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND
MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING, AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION - 5