Nair v. Copeland

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 17, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01296
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 JAYAKRISHNAN K NAIR, et al., CASE NO. C19-1296 MJP 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER (1) DENYING EMERGENCY 12 v. MOTION AND EX PARTE TRO APPLICATION 13 CHANNA COPELAND, et al., (2) INSTITUTING A MORATORIUM ON 14 Defendants. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS 15 16 On January 13, 2020, the Plaintiffs (one week after a similar motion was denied) filed an 17 Emergency Motion and Ex Parte TRO Application (Dkt. No. 59) seeking a prohibition against 18 taking Omana Thankamma (invalid mother of Plaintiff Jayakrishnan Nair) off life support and an 19 order that “all decisions regarding [Omana’s] medical care, until she leaves USA, shall rest 20 solely with local liaison Mr. Suresh Muthuswamy alone.” Id. at 22. The “emergency,” and the 21 basis for the renewed request, is Plaintiffs’ claim that “Guardian and Harborview want to save 22 costs of [Omana’s] ICU admission by pulling her from life support to murder her.” Id. at 1. 23 24 1 Ex Parte Application for TRO 2 The Court considers four factors in examining Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO: (1) 3 likelihood of success on the merits, (2) likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) the balance of equities, 4 and (4) the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

5 The Court will not reiterate here the grounds asserted in multiple prior orders for its lack 6 of authority to intervene in a state proceeding which Plaintiffs have yet to prove requires federal 7 involvement. Those grounds still exist and constitute reason enough to again deny Plaintiffs’ 8 request. 9 For purposes of the current motion, suffice it to say that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the 10 first requirement for equitable relief in federal court; namely, establishing a likelihood of success 11 on the merits of their claim. Their allegation is that Ms. Thankamma is in imminent danger of 12 being removed from life support. Nowhere in their 93 pages of supporting exhibits do Plaintiffs 13 produce a single piece of evidence that anyone is planning to do what they claim Harborview and 14 the Guardian are plotting to do. In the absence of any proof, their success of likelihood on the

15 merits of their claim is zero. On that basis, the Court DENIES their application for an ex parte 16 TRO. 17 Moratorium on Plaintiffs’ motion practice 18 The motion denied by this order represents Plaintiffs’ fourth ex parte application for a 19 TRO and (including their unsuccessful “Motion to Terminate Guardianship;” Dkt. No. 8) their 20 fifth non-meritorious request for relief from this Court. Responding to Plaintiffs’ attempts to 21 involve the federal courts in their state court proceedings has required the expenditure of 22 considerable judicial resources for what has essentially become a revolving door of repetitious 23 requests and unheeded denials.

24 1 Until further notice, Plaintiffs are prohibited from filing further motions in this matter. 2 They are, of course, free to respond to any motions filed by Defendants and must respond to any 3 orders of this Court accordingly, but they may not initiate any motions in the above-entitled 4 litigation until notified by the Court that they may do so.

5 6 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiffs and to all counsel. 7 Dated January 17, 2020. A 8 9 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24