Olson v. Perkins

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 SOREN RICHARD OLSEN II, CASE NO. C25-0638-KKE-MLP 8

Petitioner(s), ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

10 JEFFREY PERKINS,

11 Respondent(s).

12 Petitioner is in custody on a state court conviction and judgment, and he, proceeding pro 13 se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in April 2025. Dkt. No. 1. On September 18, 2025, 14 Petitioner filed a motion requesting a modified protective temporary restraining order. Dkt. No. 15 23. The motion requests an order requiring that Petitioner remain housed in the same unit where 16 he is currently housed until this matter is resolved, in order to prevent him from being separated 17 from his legal paperwork. Id. 18 A TRO or preliminary injunction “is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 19 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To obtain a TRO, a plaintiff must 20 show that they are likely to succeed on the merits, they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 21 absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in their favor, and an injunction is in the 22 public interest. Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009). A TRO is only 23 24 1 appropriate to grant relief of the same character as that which may be finally granted in the 2 underlying action. See DeBeers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). 3 Here, Petitioner’s motion seeks relief with respect to his prison housing conditions that is

4 not of the same character as the relief he seeks in his habeas petition. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 5 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2016) (addressing the types of relief available in habeas cases challenging 6 state-court convictions and judgments, and explaining that complaints as to prison conditions are 7 not within the scope of those habeas petitions). Moreover, the motion does not show that he 8 satisfies any of the factors for the issuance of a TRO. After reviewing Petitioner’s motion and the 9 balance of the docket, and construing them liberally as pro se filings, the Court concludes that 10 Petitioner has not met his burden to show that a TRO is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court 11 DENIES Petitioner’s motion (Dkt. No. 23). 12 Dated this 19th day of September, 2025.

13 A 14 Kymberly K. Evanson 15 United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24