Williams v. Warner et al

Filing 83

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 23 Report and Recommendation on the 10 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and the 12 MOTION to Extend TRO; and the 51 Report and Recommendation on the 14 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and the 18 MOTION for Telephonic Hearing; by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (GMR- cc: pltf)

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

5
6

MICHAEL W. WILLIAMS,
7
Plaintiff,
8

CASE NO. C15-5655 BHS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
9
BERNIE WARNER, et al.,
10

Defendants.

11
12

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendations (“R&R”)

13 of the Honorable J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkts. 23, 51), and
14 Plaintiff Michael Williams’s (“Williams”) objections to the R&Rs (Dkts. 41, 72).
15
16

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Williams, a pro se prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against thirty-three

17 defendants, including the State of Washington, Washington Department of Corrections
18 (“DOC”), and various DOC employees (collectively “Defendants”). Dkt. 19. Williams
19 alleges Defendants violated his due process rights, equal protection rights, and First
20 Amendment rights when they classified him as a “Defacto Life Without Possibility of
21 Parole (‘LWOPP’).” Id. at 28–34.
22

ORDER - 1

1

On September 21, 2015, Williams filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.

2 Dkt. 10. Williams seeks to restrain Defendants from:
3
4
5
6

(a) Using the Defacto LWOPP category to treat non-L[W]OPP offenders
such as [Williams] as if they were LWOPP offenders in order to deny civil
rights; (b) Increase their quantum of punishment on an Ex Post Facto basis;
(c) Deny privileges that they are entitled to under Washington statute; (d)
Transfering [sic] on the basis of the Defacto LWOPP classification or
otherwise retaliating against [Williams] including separation from, loss, or
destruction of legal material, or access devices such as typewriters.

7 Id. at 1–2. Williams also filed a motion to extend the temporary restraining order. Dkt.
8 12. On October 2, 2015, Judge Creatura recommended the Court deny both motions.
9 Dkt. 23. On October 15, 2015, Williams filed objections. Dkt. 41.
10

On September 23, 2015, Williams filed a motion for a preliminary injunction,

11 seeking the same relief as his motion for a temporary restraining order. Dkt. 14 at 2–3.
12 Williams also filed a motion for a telephonic hearing. Dkt. 18. On October 20, 2015,
13 Judge Creatura recommended the Court deny both motions. Dkt. 51. On November 9,
14 2015, Williams filed objections. Dkt. 72.
II. DISCUSSION

15
16

Williams objects to both R&Rs, arguing he should be granted preliminary

17 injunctive relief. Dkts. 41, 72. In the interest of judicial economy, the Court will address
18 Williams’s objections to the two R&Rs in this order.
19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) governs objections to a magistrate judge’s

20 recommended disposition. Rule 72(b) provides:
21

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge

22

ORDER - 2

1

may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
3
Nothing in Williams’s objections demonstrates Judge Creatura’s recommendations
4
are in error. As Judge Creatura explained, Williams must satisfy four requirements to
5
obtain a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. See Winter v. Nat’l Res.
6
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Specifically, Williams must show: (1) a
7
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable injury; (3) a balance of
8
hardships weighing in his favor; and (4) advancement of a public interest. Id. Although
9
Williams submits new evidence with his objections, see Dkts. 41-1 & 72-1, this evidence
10
does not establish a likelihood of success on the merits or an immediate threat of
11
irreparable injury. Williams also fails to show the other two requirements are satisfied in
12
this case. The Court therefore agrees with Judge Creatura that Williams’s motions should
13
be denied.
14
III. ORDER
15
The Court having considered the R&Rs, Williams’s objections, and the remaining
16
record, does hereby find and order that the R&Rs (Dkts. 23, 51) are ADOPTED.
17

Dated this 1st day of December, 2015.

18

A

19

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

20
21
22

ORDER - 3