Susheelkumar v. Siems ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 RAJAKUMARI SUSHEELKUMAR o/b/o OMANA AMMA THANKAMMA, 9 Case No. C19-1881-JCC-MLP Petitioner, 10 ORDER STRIKING PETITIONER’S v. REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY 11 RESTRAINING ORDER JASON SIMS, et al., 12 Respondent. 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner’s response to the Court’s order to 16 show cause, which includes a request for a temporary restraining order in this habeas petition 17 brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. # 7.) Rajakumari Susheelkumar brought this petition 18 on behalf of an elderly and disabled woman, Omana Thankamma, although Ms. Thankamma has 19 a state court-appointed guardian. (Dkt. # 1.) Petitioner alleges that Ms. Thankamma is being 20 confined in Harborview Medical Center (“Harborview”) and has been denied contact with her 21 family and friends for nearly five months. (Id. at 1.) King County Superior Court apparently 22 appointed Ms. Thankamma a state court-appointed guardian, Channa Copeland, in November 23 1 2018. (Id. at 2.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court strikes Petitioner’s request for a 2 temporary restraining order. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Petitioner submitted her habeas petition on November 19, 2019. (Dkt. # 1.) On November 5 27, 2019, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause by December 27, 2019 why this matter 6 should not be dismissed for a number of apparent deficiencies. (Dkt. # 5.) First, it does not 7 appear Ms. Thankamma is in custody following a criminal conviction, or that Petitioner is 8 challenging the validity of any such conviction or sentence, as required for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 9 petitions. (Id. at 2.) Second, it appears that Petitioner is attempting to challenge Harborview’s 10 failure to grant Ms. Thankamma’s relatives access to her due to a state court order appointing 11 guardianship, which would be more appropriately brought in the related case, Jayakrishnan Nair, 12 et al. v. Channa Copeland, et al., Case No. C19-1296-MJP, which involves challenges to the 13 guardianship and includes Rajakumari Susheelkumar as a named Plaintiff and Harborview as a 14 named Defendant. (Id. at 2-3.) Lastly, it is not clear that Petitioner has standing to sue on Ms. 15 Thankamma’s behalf as it appears her affairs are being handled under a guardianship order with 16 a duly-appointed guardian. (Id. at 3.) 17 On December 27, 2019, Petitioner submitted a response to the Court’s order to show 18 cause. (Dkt. # 7.) In her response, Petitioner reasserts the allegations regarding Ms. Thankamma 19 from her habeas petition. (Id.) Petitioner seeks to make arrangements to return Ms. Thankamma 20 to India to be reunited with her family and friends, and to free her from alleged illegal solitary 21 confinement. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner alleges that without a temporary restraining order, she faces 22 serious, irreversible harm of Ms. Thankamma’s impending death as a result of her alleged 23 isolation and lack of care from her family. (Id. at 35.) 1 The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is the same as that for a 2 preliminary injunction. Stuhlbarg Int’ll Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 3 (9th Cir. 2001). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 4 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 5 relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public 6 interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A plaintiff may also 7 qualify for a preliminary injunction by showing that there are serious questions going to the 8 merits of his claim and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor, so long as the 9 irreparable harm and the public interest factors in Winter are also met. Alliance for the Wild 10 Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). 11 While the Court is sympathetic to the allegations in Petitioner’s pleadings, the response 12 fails to correct any of the deficiencies identified in the Court’s order to show cause. Therefore, 13 there is no viable habeas petition in this matter and Petitioner cannot establish she is likely to 14 succeed on the merits. The Court notes that Petitioner filed a nearly identical request for a 15 temporary restraining order in the civil rights matter in Jayakrishnan Nair, et al. v. Channa 16 Copeland, et al., Case No. C19-1296-MJP on the same day she submitted the response to the 17 Court’s order to show cause. That request for a temporary restraining order contains the same 18 statement of issues and legal analysis. (Compare (Dkt. # 7 at 12-13, 14-30) with (Jayakrishnan 19 Nair, et al. v. Channa Copeland, et al., Case No. C19-1296-MJP Dkt. # 40 at 9-10, 10-28).) 20 III. CONCLUSION 21 Accordingly, the request for a temporary restraining order which was appended to 22 Petitioner’s response to the Court’s order to show cause (dkt. # 7) is stricken. 23 1 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to the Honorable John 2 C. Coughenour. 3 Dated this 27th day of December, 2019. 4 A 5 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23