Ewing v. City of Sedro Woolley

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 21, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01307
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 KEVIN S. EWING, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01307-JNW 8 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER 9 v. 10 CITY OF SEDRO WOOLLEY; BROCK 11 D. STILES; JAMES M. ZACHOR; HEATHER SHAND; KEVIN L. 12 ROGERSON; DOES 1-10,

13 Defendants. 14 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable 15 Jamal N. Whitehead, United States District Judge: 16

17 On November 18, 2024, pro se Plaintiff Kevin S. Ewing filed three motions 18 seeking immediate injunctive relief: an Emergency Motion for Recusal and Stay of 19 Proceedings, Dkt. No. 9; an Emergency Motion to Void Coerced Scheduling Order 20 and Renewed Objection to Jurisdiction, Dkt. No. 10; and a Petition for Writ of 21 Mandamus, Dkt. No. 11. 22 23 1 Ewing does not classify these motions as Rule 65 requests for a temporary 2 restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. But “[a]

3 document filed pro se is to be liberally construed.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 4 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). As such, the Court construes the 5 above-listed motions as Rule 65 motions. 6 Ewing does not submit proof to the Court that these motions for immediate 7 relief have been served on Defendants. Nevertheless, Defendants have appeared 8 through counsel in this case and therefore have notice of the instant motions. Dkt.

9 Nos. 6, 7. 10 Under LCR 65(b)(5), when a party files for a temporary restraining order, the 11 adverse party must generally “(1) file a notice indicating whether it plans to oppose 12 the motion within twenty-four hours after service of the motion, and (2) file its 13 response, if any, within forty-eight hours after the motion is served.” Because Ewing 14 did not label his motions as Rule 65 motions—nor submit proof of service of the 15 motions on Defendants to the Court— the Court concludes that the 24-hour period

16 for Defendants to notify the Court of their intent, if any, to oppose the motions did 17 not begin to run when the motions were filed. Instead, the Court ORDERS 18 Defendants to notify the Court, within twenty-four hours of issuance of this Order, 19 whether they plan to oppose Ewing’s requests for emergency relief. Subsequently, 20 any response from Defendants is due within forty-eight hours of issuance of this 21 Order. See LCR 65(b).

22 Whether or not Defendants respond, the Court will decide the motions in 23 accordance with the well-established procedural and substantive law governing 1 emergency requests for injunctive relief under Rule 65. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. 2 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)

3 Dated this 21st day of November 2024. 4 Ravi Subramanian Clerk 5 /s/Kathleen Albert 6 Deputy Clerk 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23