Blackburn v. Washington Department of Social & Health Services , 472 F. App'x 569 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA BLACKBURN; et al., No. 11-35755
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05385-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 5, 2012
Seattle, Washington
Before: FERNANDEZ and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and KOH, District Judge.**
Plaintiffs Patricia Blackburn and eight Psychiatric Security Attendants
employed at Western State Hospital (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal the district
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh, District Judge for the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
court’s order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin
Defendants State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services,
Western State Hospital, the Chief Operating Officer of Western State Hospital, and
the Director of the Center for Forensic Studies at Western State Hospital from
enforcing any policy or practice that segregates or assigns hospital employees by
race. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely
to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an
injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555
U.S. 7, 20 (2008). We will reverse a district court’s denial of a preliminary
injunction only when it has abused its discretion. M.R. v. Dreyfus, 663 F.3d 1100,
1107 (9th Cir. 2011).
Although we express no view on the merits of the complaint, we conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a
preliminary injunction. The district court identified the correct legal standard and
its factual findings were not “illogical, implausible, or without support in
inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.” Id. (quoting United
States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)). In light of the
2
competing declarations, the district court did not clearly err in finding that no
discriminatory staffing policy currently exists at Western State Hospital.
Because the district court properly concluded that Plaintiffs failed to
demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm where the record does not clearly
reflect an ongoing discriminatory staffing policy, Winter, 555 U.S. at 22, we do not
address the other factors required to obtain injunctive relief. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.
3