Gantt v. Rhoton

W.D. Washington

Gantt v. Rhoton

DecidedJanuary 31, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-05352

StatusUnknown

This text of Gantt v. Rhoton (Gantt v. Rhoton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gantt v. Rhoton, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 MATTHEW GANTT, Case No. C19-5352 RBL-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 JANET RHOTON, 9 Defendants. 10

11 In this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Matthew Gantt filed a motion 12 for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order on September 26, 2019. 13 Dkt. 28. In an order to show cause, this Court directed plaintiff to submit an affidavit to 14 the court demonstrating how the motion for a temporary restraining order was related to 15 the claims in plaintiff’s complaint, since the motion for a TRO sought an injunction 16 against unnamed defendants. Dkt. 29. Since then, plaintiff has submitted an amended 17 complaint, adding new defendants and claims. Dkt. 51. Plaintiff’s amended complaint 18 does not make clear whether the new defendants are the same individuals described in 19 the motion for a TRO. See id. 20 Furthermore, since the Court’s order to show cause on this issue, the plaintiff has 21 not submitted evidence to the Court that his situation meets the standard for a TRO. To 22 obtain a preliminary injunction or TRO, the moving party must demonstrate: (1) he is 23 likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 24 1 of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is 2 in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Counsil, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); 3 see also Stuhlbarh Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th 4 Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s motion in September alleged that he was in fear for his life due to

5 lacking medical care for an acute injury. Dkt. 28, at 2-3. At this time, there is no 6 evidence presented to the Court that shows any imminent injury. 7 Accordingly, the Court orders plaintiff to show cause on or before March 3, 8 2020, why his motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction 9 (Dkt. 28) should not be denied by the Court as moot. 10 11 Dated this 31st day of January, 2020. 12 13 A 14 Theresa L. Fricke 15 United States Magistrate Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 MATTHEW GANTT, Case No. C19-5352 RBL-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 JANET RHOTON, 9 Defendants. 10

11 In this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Matthew Gantt filed a motion 12 for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order on September 26, 2019. 13 Dkt. 28. In an order to show cause, this Court directed plaintiff to submit an affidavit to 14 the court demonstrating how the motion for a temporary restraining order was related to 15 the claims in plaintiff’s complaint, since the motion for a TRO sought an injunction 16 against unnamed defendants. Dkt. 29. Since then, plaintiff has submitted an amended 17 complaint, adding new defendants and claims. Dkt. 51. Plaintiff’s amended complaint 18 does not make clear whether the new defendants are the same individuals described in 19 the motion for a TRO. See id. 20 Furthermore, since the Court’s order to show cause on this issue, the plaintiff has 21 not submitted evidence to the Court that his situation meets the standard for a TRO. To 22 obtain a preliminary injunction or TRO, the moving party must demonstrate: (1) he is 23 likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 24 1 of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is 2 in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Counsil, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); 3 see also Stuhlbarh Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n. 7 (9th 4 Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s motion in September alleged that he was in fear for his life due to

5 lacking medical care for an acute injury. Dkt. 28, at 2-3. At this time, there is no 6 evidence presented to the Court that shows any imminent injury. 7 Accordingly, the Court orders plaintiff to show cause on or before March 3, 8 2020, why his motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction 9 (Dkt. 28) should not be denied by the Court as moot. 10 11 Dated this 31st day of January, 2020. 12 13 A 14 Theresa L. Fricke 15 United States Magistrate Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gantt v. Rhoton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gantt-v-rhoton-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack