Opinion
CASE NO. 2:16-CV-01159-RAJ-BAT
08-30-2016
JAMES MAXWELL WORTHIN BERESTOFF, Plaintiff, v. KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER OF IMMEDIATE MEDICAL CARE
Plaintiff James M. W. Berestoff, a King County Jail prisoner proceeding in this civil rights action pro se, moves the Court for an order directing King County Correctional Facility ("KCCF") Jail Health Staff to send him to Harborview Medical Center ("HMC") for emergency dialysis. Dkt. 18. The Court construes the motion as a motion for injunctive relief, and for the reasons discussed below, recommends the motion be DENIED.
Plaintiff contends the Court should grant his motion because he fears retaliation by prison staff because he filed the complaint in this action; KCCF and HMC have a good "working relationship"; and plaintiff has a documented, serious need for dialysis. Id. The motion should be denied for several reasons. First, although plaintiff seeks an "order of immediate medical care," there is no indication he has been denied dialysis. Rather, plaintiff alleges that he refused dialysis at the KCCF facility "as a protest about unfair treatment," and he would only accept treatment at HMC. Dkt. 14 at 1. But there is no evidence to suggest that plaintiff's ability to get dialysis depends on the Court's granting of his motion. In short, plaintiff's perceived emergency is one of his own making. Second, plaintiff has indicated he will be out of custody by September 1, 2016. Dkt. 17 at 1. At that time, the government will no longer be responsible for providing plaintiff's medical care, and he is free to seek care at the location of his choosing. Finally, plaintiff offers nothing to demonstrate that retaliation for filing his complaint is imminent, or even more than merely speculative.
Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Immediate Medical Care, Dkt. 18, be DENIED.
2. The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to plaintiff.
3. Any objections to this Recommendation must be filed no later than September 13, 2016. The Clerk should note the matter for Wednesday, September 14, 2016, as ready for the District Judge's consideration if no objection is filed. If plaintiff files an objection, he must note the matter for the Court's consideration 14 days from the date the objection is filed. Objections shall not exceed eight (8) pages. The failure to timely object may affect the right to appeal.
DATED this 30th day of August, 2016.
/s/_________
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
United States Magistrate Judge