Lotusflower v. Headley

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 NONNIE MARCELLA LOTUSFLOWER, CASE NO. C24-5948-JCC-MLP 10 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER 11 v. 12 CHARLOTTE HEADLEY, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining 18 order (TRO) and preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 30). A court may issue a TRO if “specific 19 facts . . . clearly show that immediate . . . injury” will result. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A) 20 (emphasis added). The purpose of a TRO is to “preserv[e] the status quo and prevent[] 21 irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing [on the preliminary injunction 22 motion], and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck 23 Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). Though Plaintiff’s allegations are admittedly harrowing, they 24 do not demonstrate the immediacy that is required for this Court to enter relief so extraordinary 25 as a TRO, nor do they involve a request to preserve the status quo. This is especially so where 26 Plaintiff’s requested relief involves being transferred out of a facility that she has resided in for 1 over a month now. (Dkt. No. 30 at 1) (Plaintiff has been in her current facility since “Jan. 30, 2 2025,” and asks to be placed back in her former facility, “WCCW”). Moreover, Defendants have 3 now notified the Court of their intent to respond to Plaintiff’s motion. (Dkt. No. 33 at 1.) These 4 circumstances essentially convert Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction into 5 one that purely seeks a preliminary injunction. 6 Accordingly, the Court CONSTRUES Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 30) as a motion for a 7 preliminary injunction. The Court further REFERS Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 8 injunction (Dkt. No. 30) and her related motion for a subpoena (Dkt. No. 27) to the Honorable 9 Michelle L. Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge, per the procedures outlined in 28 U.S.C. 10 § 636(b)(1) and this Court’s Local Magistrate Judge Rules. 11 DATED this 21st day of March 2025. Ravi Subramanian 12 Clerk of Court 13 s/Kathleen Albert 14 Deputy Clerk 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26