United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
MARSHA J. PECHMAN, Chief District Judge.
The Court, having received and reviewed:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Production of Documents and Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No. 23); Motion for Permission to File a Second Motion for Counsel and for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 29); Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. No. 33); and Objections to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 35);
2. Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motions for a Preliminary Injunction and Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No. 25); Response to Motion for Permission to File a Second Motion (Dkt. No. 34); and Response to Objections to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 37);
3. Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 28);
and all attached declarations and exhibits, makes the following ruling:
IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order, appointment of counsel and production of documents are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for permission to file a second motion and for an extension of time are STRICKEN as unnecessary.
Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner litigant who has initiated a civil action alleging that the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to him is a violation of Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Dkt. No. 9.) He has filed requests for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Department of Corrections (DOC) from medicating him,  for the appointment of counsel and to compel the production of documents.
Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is analyzed under the Winter test. Plaintiff is entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction if he is able to establish "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." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Plaintiff's motion fails to establish any of these elements. While he undoubtedly possesses a liberty interest in not being unnecessarily subjected to psychotropic drugs ( Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 222 (1990)), the state is permitted to medicate an inmate who is, by virtue of mental illness, a danger to himself or others. Id. at 227. Because of the Fourteenth Amendment rights at stake, however, the inmate must receive a minimum of due process before being deprived of ...