Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Slaughter v. Glebe

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

October 11, 2017

OSSIE LEE SLAUGHTER, Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK R. GLEBE, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING, AND GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION

          J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge

         The 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 and MJR4.

         Plaintiff 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.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Pursuant 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.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Motion for Order to Show Cause

         Plaintiff 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. (Dkt. 156).

         Further, 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 Court's intervention.

         II. Motion for Injunctive Relief

         Plaintiff 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).

         Plaintiff 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.