United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
RAJAKUMARI SUSHEELKUMAR o/b/o OMANA AMMA THANKAMMA, Petitioner,
JASON SIMS, et al., Respondent.
ORDER STRIKING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
MICHELLE L. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner's response
to the Court's order to show cause, which includes a
request for a temporary restraining order in this habeas
petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. #
7.) Rajakumari Susheelkumar brought this petition on behalf
of an elderly and disabled woman, Omana Thankamma, although
Ms. Thankamma has a state court-appointed guardian. (Dkt. #
1.) Petitioner alleges that Ms. Thankamma is being confined
in Harborview Medical Center (“Harborview”) and
has been denied contact with her family and friends for
nearly five months. (Id. at 1.) King County Superior
Court apparently appointed Ms. Thankamma a state
court-appointed guardian, Channa Copeland, in November 2018.
(Id. at 2.) For the reasons discussed below, the
Court strikes Petitioner's request for a temporary
submitted her habeas petition on November 19, 2019. (Dkt. #
1.) On November 27, 2019, the Court ordered Petitioner to
show cause by December 27, 2019 why this matter should not be
dismissed for a number of apparent deficiencies. (Dkt. # 5.)
First, it does not appear Ms. Thankamma is in custody
following a criminal conviction, or that Petitioner is
challenging the validity of any such conviction or sentence,
as required for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions.
(Id. at 2.) Second, it appears that Petitioner is
attempting to challenge Harborview's failure to grant Ms.
Thankamma's relatives access to her due to a state court
order appointing guardianship, which would be more
appropriately brought in the related case, Jayakrishnan
Nair, et al. v. Channa Copeland, et al., No.
C19-1296-MJP, which involves challenges to the guardianship
and includes Rajakumari Susheelkumar as a named Plaintiff and
Harborview as a named Defendant. (Id. at 2-3.)
Lastly, it is not clear that Petitioner has standing to sue
on Ms. Thankamma's behalf as it appears her affairs are
being handled under a guardianship order with a
duly-appointed guardian. (Id. at 3.)
December 27, 2019, Petitioner submitted a response to the
Court's order to show cause. (Dkt. # 7.) In her response,
Petitioner reasserts the allegations regarding Ms. Thankamma
from her habeas petition. (Id.) Petitioner seeks to
make arrangements to return Ms. Thankamma to India to be
reunited with her family and friends, and to free her from
alleged illegal solitary confinement. (Id. at 3.)
Petitioner alleges that without a temporary restraining
order, she faces serious, irreversible harm of Ms.
Thankamma's impending death as a result of her alleged
isolation and lack of care from her family. (Id. at
standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is the
same as that for a preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg
Int'll Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240
F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). “A plaintiff seeking
a preliminary injunction must 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.
Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A
plaintiff may also qualify for a preliminary injunction by
showing that there are serious questions going to the merits
of his claim and that the balance of hardships tips sharply
in his favor, so long as the irreparable harm and the public
interest factors in Winter are also met.
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d
1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011).
the Court is sympathetic to the allegations in
Petitioner's pleadings, the response fails to correct any
of the deficiencies identified in the Court's order to
show cause. Therefore, there is no viable habeas petition in
this matter and Petitioner cannot establish she is likely to
succeed on the merits. The Court notes that Petitioner filed
a nearly identical request for a temporary restraining order
in the civil rights matter in Jayakrishnan Nair, et al.
v. Channa Copeland, et al., No. C19-1296-MJP on the same
day she submitted the response to the Court's order to
show cause. That request for a temporary restraining order
contains the same statement of issues and legal analysis.
(Compare (Dkt. # 7 at 12-13, 14-30) with
(Jayakrishnan Nair, et al. v. Channa Copeland, et
al., No. C19-1296-MJP Dkt. # 40 at 9-10, 10-28).)
the request for a temporary restraining order which was
appended to Petitioner's response to the Court's
order to show cause (dkt. # 7) is stricken.
Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties
and to ...