United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING, AND
GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION
Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge
District Court has referred this action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1983 to United States Magistrate Judge, J. Richard
Creatura. The authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3
Ossie Lee Slaughter filed a motion requesting various relief.
He asks for injunctive relief in moving him out of the Coyote
Ridge Corrections Center ("CRCC"), for an order
that defendants show cause why they haven't provided
discovery, for a telephonic hearing regarding those motions,
and for an extension of the discovery deadline. However,
plaintiffs request for injunctive relief is unrelated to his
underlying claims and he has already received his requested
discovery. Therefore, the Court denies his motion for an
order to show cause, motion for injunctive relief, and motion
for telephonic hearing. However, noting that plaintiff
received the discovery after filing his motion for extension,
the Court grants that motion.
Ossie Lee Slaughter is a Washington state prisoner in the
custody of the Department of Corrections and is currently
housed at the Washington State Penitentiary
("WSP"). Dkt. 154. At the time plaintiff filed his
original complaint, he was housed at the Stafford Creek
Corrections Center ("SCCC"). Dkt. 109 at 2.
alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when he
was cited for an infraction on June 11, 2015, and when he was
subsequently placed in administrative segregation and
transferred to CRCC. Dkt. 109 at 9-16. He filed his original
complaint and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis on July 14, 2015. Dkt. 1. After filing an
answer, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim on October 8, 2015. Dkt. 44.
to a recommendation from this Court, the Honorable Benjamin
H. Settle denied the motion with respect to plaintiffs First
Amendment claims, but granted the motion on his other claims,
allowing plaintiff leave to amend his Eight Amendment claim
and include additional defendants. Dkt. 73 at 2. Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on November 7, 2016. Dkt. 109.
Defendants filed an answer on March 24, 2017 (Dkt. 146) and
the Court entered a pretrial scheduling order on April 3,
2017 (Dkt. 148). The Court set the discovery deadline for
September 30, 2017. Dkt. 148. Plaintiff filed this motion for
an order to show cause, motion for injunctive relief, and
motion for telephonic hearing on August 21, 2017. Dkt. 156.
He subsequently filed his motion for an extension on
September 18, 2017. Dkt. 160.
Motion for Order to Show Cause
requests an order that defendants show cause why "they
have not diligently put forth the effort to either reconcile
the matter above and provide Mr. Slaughter with relief or . .
. provide Mr. Slaughter with all his overdue request[s] for
discovery evidence . . . ." Dkt. 156 at 3. As the Court
has already noted in a previous order (Dkt. 153), Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) sets forth the pleadings
allowed, and the Court cannot order the parties to enter into
a settlement or involve itself with settlement negotiations.
Therefore, the Court denies plaintiffs motion on this ground.
insofar as plaintiff requests that the Court order defendants
to show cause why they have not provided discovery,
defendants state they have provided plaintiff with their
objections and answers to his sole discovery request. Dkt.
163. However, the record does not indicate what, if any,
further discovery materials are still in dispute. Therefore,
the Court denies the motion (Dkt. 156) without prejudice. The
parties may file a later motion to compel if a discovery
dispute arises that cannot be resolved without the
Motion for Injunctive Relief
also requests injunctive relief, asking the court to order
that he be transferred out of CRCC and provide a
"temporary restraining order" against CRCC and the
WSP. Dkt. 156 at 2-3. Injunctive relief is intended only to
give intermediate relief of the same character that will be
granted if the party seeking the injunction should succeed on
the underlying claims. A preliminary injunction is an
"extraordinary and drastic remedy" that is never
awarded as of right. Munafv. Geren, 553 U.S. 674,
689-90 (2008) (citations and quotation omitted). Further,
"[w]hen a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on
claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the
authority to issue an injunction." Pac. Radiation
Oncology, LLC v. Queen 'sMed. Ctr., 910 F.3d 631,
633 (9th Cir. 2015).
first requests an order transferring him out of CRCC.
However, plaintiff has already been transferred out of CRCC
(Dkt. 154), so this aspect of the motion is moot. Further,
plaintiffs other request is unrelated to his underlying
claims. Plaintiff asks that a restraining order be entered
against CRCC and WSP, seemingly because of harm he faced in
those facilities. Dkt. 156 at 3. However, plaintiffs amended
complaint focuses on an alleged wrongful infraction plaintiff
received while housed at SCCC and his subsequent placement in
administrative segregation. Dkt. 109 at 14-16. Though his
complaint alleges actions taken against him while at CRCC
(Id. at 16-17), plaintiffs motion only alleges
vindictive action by "defendant's coworker's
[sic]" rather than action by defendants themselves (Dkt.
160 at 2). Because of this, plaintiffs motion for an
injunction is ...