United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
LYNN WINMILL, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
me is Plaintiff's Motion for Indicative Ruling Under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 62.1 and 60(a). Dkt. 185.
Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED as unnecessary given my
prior Memorandum Decision and Order.
case is currently on appeal before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Dkts. 163, 164. Plaintiff
filed a motion for an indicative ruling pursuant of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 62.1 and 60(a), asking me to make
explicit findings that:
the injunctive relief ordered … [in the Court's
prior memorandum decision and order in this case] is narrowly
drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the
violation of the federal right, is the least intrusive means
necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and
that there is no evidence that granting this relief will have
any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the
criminal justice system.
Dkt. 185 at 2.
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), as
codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1), provides:
In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, to the
extent otherwise authorized by law, the court may enter a
temporary restraining order or an order for preliminary
injunctive relief. Preliminary injunctive relief must be
narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct
the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be
the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm. The
court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on
public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system
caused by the preliminary relief.
through her motion, asks me to make explicit findings
indicating that the preliminary injunction I issued complies
with the PLRA. Conversely, Defendants maintain that I cannot
issue an indicative ruling because (1) my Memorandum Decision
and Order has expired (Dkt. 188 at 4-5); (2) Plaintiff failed
to properly sequence her motions (id. at 5-7); and
(3) Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief she seeks under
Rule 60(a) (id. at 7-11).
reviewed the arguments set forth by the Parties, I find that
the proper course is to deny Plaintiff's motion, but not
for any of the reasons urged by Defendants. Rather, denial is
appropriate because my initial Memorandum Decision and Order
(Dkt. 149) fully complies with the requirements of 18 U.S.C.
did not make explicit findings on the
need-narrowness-intrusiveness requirement which parroted the
language of the statute, nothing in its text suggests that
the precise language in the statute must be employed in the
decision. The Ninth Circuit so indicated in Gilmore v.
People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 1008
(9th Cir. 2000):
We do not read this to mean that explicit findings must have
been made, so long as the record, the court's decision
ordering prospective relief, and relevant caselaw fairly
disclose that the relief actually meets ...