Turner v. Ralkey

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 VICTOR JULIAN TURNER, CASE NO. C20-5472 BHS-DWC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 9 v. AND RECOMMENDATION 10 TORI RALKEY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 14 of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. 24, and 15 Plaintiff Victor Turner’s1 (“Plaintiff”) objections to the R&R, Dkt. 25. 16 On July 23, 2020, Judge Christel issued the R&R recommending that the Court 17 deny Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction because the requested relief is outside 18 the scope of the operative complaint. Dkt. 24. On August 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed 19 objections. Dkt. 25. 20 21 1 Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff is a transgender prisoner and uses 22 a feminine pronoun. Dkt. 8, 10. Plaintiff alleges Mikailah Kay Sweetgrass-Turner is Plaintiff’s legal name, however, all correspondence must be directed to the “commitment name” of Victor Julian Turner. 1 The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 2 disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or

3 modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 4 magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 5 In this case, Plaintiff argues that the requested relief in the motion for a 6 preliminary injunction is related to the claims in the amended complaint because she 7 seeks an injunction preventing certain defendants from making decisions regarding her 8 housing location. Dkt. 25 at 2. Even if Plaintiff established some relationship between

9 the motion and her claims, the motion for preliminary relief fails because she has failed to 10 establish immediate harm in the absence of the requested relief, which is a necessary 11 element of preliminary relief. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 12 Plaintiff’s motion is based on speculation that certain defendants will change her housing 13 assignment for some unknown reason during the pendency of this proceeding. Dkt. 8. In

14 the absence of a legitimate threat to reassign Plaintiff or an actual reassignment, Plaintiff 15 has failed to establish that any relief is warranted. Therefore, the Court having 16 considered the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the remaining record, does hereby find 17 and order as follows: 18 (1) The R&R is ADOPTED; and

19 (2) Plaintiff’s Motion, Dkt. 8, is DENIED; 20 Dated this 21st day of September, 2020. A 21 22