Goninan v. Washington Department of Corrections et al

Filing 22

ORDER that Plaintiff's 9 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction; 10 MOTION to Appoint Counsel; 11 MOTION to file without first exhausting administrative remedies, 19 MOTION for Oral Arguments, and 20 Secon d MOTION for oral arguments are re-noted to 12/15/2017. Defendants are directed to respond to the substantive aspects of the above noted motions on or before 12/11/17. Signed by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Nathan Goninan, Prisoner ID: 869663)(CMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 NATHAN ROBERT GONINAN, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05714-BHS-JRC ORDER RENOTING PENDING MOTIONS v. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action to United States 17 Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and local 18 Magistrate Judge Rules MJR1, MJR3 and MJR4. 19 Plaintiff Nathan Robert Goninan (a.k.a. Nonnie M. Lotusflower) is a transgender prisoner 20 currently housed in the Washington State Penitentiary. She filed a complaint along with a motion 21 for temporary restraining order and a motion to appoint counsel, alleging defendants have denied 22 her gender-affirming therapies while she is incarcerated. Dkt. 1, 8. The Court ordered that the 23 complaint and other materials be served on defendants. Dkt. 12. However, the noting date for 24 ORDER RENOTING PENDING MOTIONS - 1 1 plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order had already passed and plaintiff did not ask 2 that it be renoted. See Dkt. 9. Because defendants had not yet entered waivers of service or 3 notices of appearance, the Court did not order defendants to respond to the motion for temporary 4 restraining order at that time. 5 Defendants’ counsel has now entered a notice of appearance, waivers of service, and a 6 summary response to plaintiff’s motions. Dkts. 13-18; 21. Plaintiff has also filed two motions for 7 oral argument. Dkts. 19, 20. Because the noting date had passed before defendants received the 8 motion for temporary restraining order, defendants request the motion either be denied or be 9 renoted to allow them to respond. Dkt. 21. 10 11 12 District courts have inherent authority to control their docket. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010). Therefore it is ORDERED: Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (Dkt. 9), motion for appointment of 13 counsel (Dkt. 10), motion to file without first exhausting administrative remedies (Dkt. 11), 14 motion for oral arguments (Dkt. 19), and second motion for oral arguments (Dkt. 20) are renoted. 15 The Clerk is directed to renote the above noted motions for December 15, 2017. 16 17 Defendants are directed to respond to the substantive aspects of the above noted motions on or before December 11, 2017. 18 The Clerk is finally directed to provide plaintiff with a copy of this order. 19 Dated this 22nd day of November, 2017. A 20 21 J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 ORDER RENOTING PENDING MOTIONS - 2

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?