Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Edmo v. Idaho Department of Correction

United States District Court, D. Idaho

April 9, 2019

ADREE EDMO, Plaintiff,
v.
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          B. LYNN WINMILL, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Before 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.

         BACKGROUND

         This 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.

         ANALYSIS

         The 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.

         Plaintiff, 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).

         Having 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. § 3626(a)(1).

         While I 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.