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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?