King v. White

Background

Sharif King, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint that the court understood as asserting claims under a federal civil-rights statute and the Eighth Amendment. He alleged that he was incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility and had epilepsy that caused frequent, severe seizures. According to the complaint, corrections officers transported him to a court proceeding in November 2019 despite his request not to be seated in a particular part of the vehicle and his warning that he had not received his medication. King alleged that he suffered a severe seizure during the transport and that officers did not take him to a hospital or otherwise provide medical assistance. He also alleged that officers did not accommodate his medical concerns during the return trip and that he later experienced lasting physical and mental injuries.

About one month after filing the complaint, King moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) for a temporary restraining order, an emergency order intended to prevent immediate harm. He asserted that defendants were scheduled to transport him on July 16, 2020 under the same conditions and asked the court to stop that transport.

Ruling

The court denied the motion. Because Judge Nathan was outside the district, the motion was referred to Judge Failla, who contacted the facility where King was incarcerated. Facility officials said King was not scheduled for transport on July 16, had not been transported that day, and had no transport planned in the near future because such transports were temporarily suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that the requested order was moot because the transport King sought to stop did not occur and the date had passed. With no transport currently scheduled or anticipated, the court found nothing further to address at that time.

The court gave an additional reason for denying the motion. Rule 65(b)(1) permits an emergency order without written or oral notice to the opposing party only when specific facts clearly show that immediate, irreparable harm will occur before the opposing party can be heard. The court found that King had not shown why there was insufficient time for a hearing or a response from the defendants. The court noted that a response could have revealed that King was not scheduled for transport on the date identified in his motion.

Disposition

Judge Nathan’s conclusion states that King’s motion for a temporary restraining order was DENIED and that the ruling resolved Docket Number 10. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion does not decide the merits of King’s underlying allegations.