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
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.