Nelson v. Madden

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 WILLIAM NELSON, Case No. 3:25-cv-05490-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING TEMPORARY 9 RESTRAINING ORDER v. 10 MARY MADDEN; KAYLA AYERS; 11 CLINT P JOHNSON; JUDGE SUSAN ADAMS; PIERCE COUNTY; PIERCE 12 COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

13 Defendants. 14

15 On June 3, 2025, Plaintiff William Nelson moved for a Temporary Restraining Order 16 (TRO) against Defendants, Pierce County Superior Court and several of its officials and 17 employees. Dkt. 2. The TRO requested that the Court stay a hearing scheduled for June 4, 2025 18 in Pierce County Superior Court. Id. Mr. Nelson claimed that he was a defendant in the state 19 court case. Id. Mr. Nelson alleged that the Defendants denied him reasonable accommodations 20 under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and that requiring him to go forward with 21 the hearing will violate his rights under the ADA and the Due Process Clause of the United 22 States Constitution and cause him irreparable harm. Id. 23 The Court, relying on Mr. Nelson’s statements, found that he had shown serious 24 questions going to the merits of his claims, a potential for irreparable harm, and that the balance 1 of hardships tips in his favor. Dkt. 8 at 2. Accordingly, the Court granted temporary injunctive 2 relief to preserve the status quo, enjoining Defendants from proceeding with the scheduled state- 3 court hearing until both parties can be fully heard on the merits of this motion. Id.

4 On June 4, 2025, Defendants appeared and moved to vacate the TRO. Dkt. 10. 5 Defendants explained that the underlying state court matter is a civil petition for a Vulnerable 6 Adult Protection Order (VAPO) to which Mr. Nelson is not a party. Id. at 3. Defendants also 7 noted that, contrary to Mr. Nelson’s claims, they are engaging in the accommodation process and 8 have allowed him to appear for hearings by Zoom—even though he is not a party. Id. at 6. 9 The Court’s initial determination that Mr. Nelson faced irreparable harm and had shown 10 serious questions on the merits rested on his attestation that he was a defendant in the state court 11 action. Dkt. 8 at 4–7. In light of the new information Defendants have provided, the Court 12 VACATES the TRO. See Sovereign v. Deutsche Bank, 856 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1218 (D. Or. 2012)

13 (vacating TRO where the basis for the court’s conclusion that plaintiffs had shown a likelihood 14 of success on the merits changed). Because Mr. Nelson is not a party to the action, see generally 15 Dkt. 12-3, Dkt. 12-4, and because the Defendants have nonetheless engaged in the 16 accommodations process, see generally Dkt. 12-2, Dkt. 13-5, the Court finds that Mr. Nelson 17 does not face irreparable harm if the hearing is allowed to proceed. And the Court finds that 18 Mr. Nelson has not raised serious questions on the merits. 19 Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to vacate the TRO. Dkt. 10. The Court 20 VACATES the TRO entered on June 3, 2025. Dkt. 8. The Vulnerable Adult Protection Order 21 matter pending in Pierce County Superior Court Cause No. 25-2-01460-1 may proceed on the 22 merits per the trial court’s discretion.

23 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 24 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. l Dated this 4th day of June, 2025. eg 3 Tiffany. Cartwright United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24