Case 6:16-cv-01602-MC Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 7
Lynn S. Walsh, OSB #924955 email: walsh@europa.com 209 SW Oak Street Suite 400 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: 503-790-2772 Facsimile: 503-227-6840 Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

STEVEN FOX,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COLETTE PETERS, Director of the Oregon Department of Corrections, in her official capacity, and THE STATE OF OREGON

Defendants.

NO.
COMPLAINT Violation of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983); Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.); Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794) – Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief,

This is a civil rights, Americans with Disability Act, and Rehabilitation Act action concerning the release of a physically disabled prisoner into the community with no resources or ability to care for himself. Plaintiff suffered a severe injury while incarcerated causing spinal shock. As such, he needs a motorized wheelchair and help with many, if not most, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). Plaintiff, currently housed in a prison infirmary, is due to be released on Saturday, August 12, 2016. Yet, Oregon Department of Corrections officials have provided no

Page 1

COMPLAINT

LYNN S. WALSH, OSB#92495 Suite 400
209 SW Oak Street Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 790-2772 walsh@europa.com

Case 6:16-cv-01602-MC Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 7

release plan to plaintiff that establishes continuity of care. Plaintiff will likely suffer serious and

irreparable harm if released to the community under the current plan.

Jurisdiction

1.

This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)(4).

Venue

2.

Venue is proper within the District of Oregon because all of the events giving

rise to this claim occurred in this judicial district, and all defendants reside in this judicial

district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Parties

3.

Plaintiff Steven Fox is a prisoner of the Oregon Department of Corrections

(ODOC) and until approximately Thursday, August 4, 2016, he was housed in the prison

infirmary at the Oregon State Penitentiary.

4.

Defendant State of Oregon operates the Oregon Department of Corrections

(“ODOC”) facilities. At all times relevant, the State of Oregon was obligated to accommodate

prisoners with disabilities lodged in its facilities.

5.

Defendant Collette Peters is the director and an employee of ODOC. She is

sued in her official capacity. As director, Ms. Peters is responsible for the operations and

policies of the Oregon Department of Corrections. At all times relevant, Ms. Peters was acting

under color of state law.

Facts

6. Plaintiff entered the Oregon Department of Corrections in late 2010.

Page 2

COMPLAINT

LYNN S. WALSH, OSB#92495 Suite 400
209 SW Oak Street Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 790-2772 walsh@europa.com

Case 6:16-cv-01602-MC Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 7
7. On July 11, 2015, Plaintiff collapsed in his segregation cell at Two Rivers Correctional Unit. As a result he went into spinal shock, and suffers from a central cervical cord injury.1
8. Plaintiff is now physically paralyzed and uses a wheelchair for mobility. He has very limited use of his upper extremities, and no use of his lower extremities. As such, he needs assistance with many activities of daily living (ADLs). He also needs an electric wheelchair, or assistance with propelling his wheelchair. (See RIO Occupational Therapy Discharge Summary attached as Exhibit 1.)
9. Plaintiff has been either hospitalized or housed in the Oregon State Penitentiary infirmary since July 11, 2015. Prisoner orderlies or nurses assist him with his ADLs.
10. As of August 3, 2016, it was plaintiff’s understanding that he was going to be released to the streets of Umatilla County with nothing more than a $25 debit card. He communicated this information to his recently retained lawyer on August 3, 2016.
11. Since learning of Mr. Fox’s predicament, his lawyer has been in contact with Oregon Department of Justice attorneys to ascertain what the release plan is for Mr. Fox.
12. Plaintiff’s lawyer learned on Friday, August 5, 2016, that there really is no release plan for Mr. Fox, but ODOJ assured her that at minimum Mr. Fox would be going to some sort of “motel/hotel situation.”

1 Plaintiff has filed a tort claim notice regarding the circumstances surrounding his collapse and injuries. Plaintiff alleges that he was denied adequate nutrition while housed in disciplinary segregation leading to significant weight loss and malnourishment, resulting in his collapse and subsequent spinal cord injury.

Page 3

COMPLAINT

LYNN S. WALSH, OSB#92495 Suite 400
209 SW Oak Street Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 790-2772 walsh@europa.com

Case 6:16-cv-01602-MC Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 4 of 7

13.

Mr. Fox is unable to care for himself. He is not currently signed up for any

programs or services that assist the disabled. If he is released to a motel or hotel he will be

unable to care for himself, nor will he have a way to obtain services, or even food and water, due

to his inability to be mobile.

14. In addition to his lack of release plan, ODOC transferred plaintiff to Two Rivers

Correctional Institution in Umatilla, Oregon on August 4, 2016 which is where he will be

released.

15. Upon information and belief, Umatilla has no (or very few) services or programs

for the disabled.

16. Plaintiff has no friends or family in Umatilla, Oregon.

17. Plaintiff’s relatives live in Portland, Oregon.

18. Under the current discharge plan, plaintiff has no way to reintegrate into society

and will likely languish or worse in any type of hotel or motel situation.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of 42 USC 1983 – Director Colette Peters)

19. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-18.

20. Allowing the Director to release plaintiff without providing continuity of care is

deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical and health needs, and would subject

plaintiff to a serious risk of harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

Page 4

COMPLAINT

LYNN S. WALSH, OSB#92495 Suite 400
209 SW Oak Street Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 790-2772 walsh@europa.com

Case 6:16-cv-01602-MC Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 5 of 7

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act – State of
Oregon) 21. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-18. 22. The prisons comprising of the Oregon Department of Corrections have been recipients of federal funds, and are thus covered by § 504's mandate, which requires recipients of federal monies to reasonably accommodate persons with disabilities in their facilities, program activities, and services, and reasonably modify such facilities, services, and programs to accomplish this purpose. 23. The prisons comprising of the Oregon Department of Corrections are public entities within the meaning of Title II of the ADA, and provide programs, services or activities to the general public. Title II of the ADA has essentially the same mandate as Section 504. 24. Mr. Fox is a qualified individual within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of the services, programs, or activities of ODOC. Specifically, Mr. Fox suffers from being paralyzed that substantially limits one or more major life activities, including but not limited to walking, standing, lifting, bending, eating, writing, etc. 25. The Oregon Department of Corrections provides release planning to prisoners, which is a program or service of the prison for Section 504 and Title II purposes. 26. Under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, the Oregon Department of Corrections is required to accommodate disabled prisoners, and allow prisoners to participate in the same programs and services as those prisoners who are not disabled.

Page 5

COMPLAINT

LYNN S. WALSH, OSB#92495 Suite 400
209 SW Oak Street Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 790-2772 walsh@europa.com

Case 6:16-cv-01602-MC Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 6 of 7

27. Mr. Fox’s need for accommodation was obvious. 28. The Oregon Department of Corrections personnel was deliberately indifferent in failing to provide Mr. Fox with a reasonable accommodation by providing an adequate release plan, and denied him the rights and benefits accorded to other inmates, solely by reason of his disabilities in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. 29. The Oregon Department of Corrections personnel failed to implement and enforce appropriate policies and procedures to ensure the provision of necessary accommodations for the release of disabled prisoners. 30. As a direct and proximate result of ODOC personnel’s foregoing wrongful acts, defendant State of Oregon is discriminating against plaintiff on the basis of his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act.
EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 31. Plaintiff requests emergency injunctive relief to prevent imminent, irreparable harm. If defendants release plaintiff without assuring that he has the ability to be mobile, assistance with his ADLs, and a way to otherwise care for himself, plaintiff will be subjected to a serious risk of harm or death, thus irrevocably depriving him of his constitutional right to be free of such risks. 32. Plaintiff requests that he be released to an appropriate care facility paid by the State of Oregon for a reasonable period of time to provide him the ability to access care in the community. 33. Without immediate intervention from this Court, plaintiff will be released from prison without the ability to care for himself.

Page 6

COMPLAINT

LYNN S. WALSH, OSB#92495 Suite 400
209 SW Oak Street Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 790-2772 walsh@europa.com

Case 6:16-cv-01602-MC Document 1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 7 of 7

DECLARATORY RELIEF 34. An actual and immediate controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendants. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of rights with respect to this controversy. Without such a declaration, Plaintiff will be uncertain of his rights and responsibilities under the law.
ATTORNEY FEES 35. If Plaintiff prevails in this action, he is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 USC § 1988, 29 USC § 794a(b) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 12205 and 1988.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests the Court grant: a. A declaratory judgment holding unconstitutional the act of releasing plaintiff without
an adequate release plan that provides for his continuity of care is unconstitutional and in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act; b. A temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the Defendants to release plaintiff to an appropriate care facility paid for by the State of Oregon until such time that plaintiff can establish care in the community; c. An award to Plaintiff of his attorneys’ fees, costs; and d. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DATED: 8/8/2016

/s/ Lynn S. Walsh Lynn S. Walsh, OSB #924955 (503)790-2772 walsh@europa.com Attorney for plaintiff

Page 7

COMPLAINT

LYNN S. WALSH, OSB#92495 Suite 400
209 SW Oak Street Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 790-2772 walsh@europa.com

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

STEVEN FOX,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLETTE PETERS, Director of the Oregon Department of Corrections, in her official capacity, and THE STATE OF OREGON,
Defendants.

Case No. 6:16-cv-01602-MC ORDER

MCSHANE, Judge: Plaintiff Steven Fox moves for an emergency injunction requiring the defendants Colette
Peters and the state of Oregon to release him to an appropriate care facility. Fox is due to be released from the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) tomorrow. Defendants intend to release Fox to a Pendleton motel with limited assistance, especially after the initial check in. Fox has little mobility and limited use of his arms and legs. Because Fox has demonstrated a significant likelihood of success on the merits of his claim, and because there is a risk he will suffer imminent harm absent an injunction, Fox's motion for an emergency temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 1
1 Fox has yet to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. To proceed in this litigation, Fox must do one or the other.
1-0RDER

STANDARDS A party seeking a preliminary injunction "must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The mere possibility of irreparable harm is not enough. Rather, the plaintiff must establish such harm is likely. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). The standards for issuing a temporary restraining order are similar to those required for a preliminary injunction. Lockheed Missile & Space Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F.Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Ca. 1995). The court's decision on a motion for a preliminary injunction is not a ruling on the merits. See Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984).
DISCUSSION
Upon beginning his prison term in 2010, Fox was an able-bodied individual. Fox Deel. ii 2.2 Due to the neglect of prison officials, Fox sustained injuries in July 2015. Fox Deel. ii 2.
While the cause of Fox's injuries is likely disputed, no one disputes that Fox has severe limitations with mobility. Since July 2015, Fox has been housed in a prison infirmary or a hospital. Id. Fox currently resides in the infirmary of Two Rivers Correctional Institution. Id. Although Fox's condition is slowly improving, he cannot function alone in a motel room. Fox
Deel. ii 4. Fox has some use in his right leg, no use in his right arm, and 10-15% use of his left
arm. Id. Fox requires a wheelchair to move, pushing it with one thumb and one foot. Id. Fox can maneuver himself in the wheelchair for a few minutes, after which point his is completely
2 At this stage, I accept as true most of the statements in the sworn declarations submitted in support of Fox's motion. Although Fox did not sign his original declaration, he signed a second declaration. ECF No. 7. As relevant here, especially with respect to Fox's mobility, there are few disputed facts.
2-0RDER

exhausted. Id. On his own, Fox cannot wheel over even minimal barriers, such as the lip on the

floor of a doorway. Id.

ODOC will provide Fox with a standard wheelchair upon release. Fox Deel. if 10. In

prison, Fox has people assisting him with moving, transfers, and other tasks such as putting on

socks. Fox Deel. if 6. Fox uses an assistive device to get out of bed. Without the device, it takes

I

Fox 15 minutes to get out of bed. Fox Deel. if 7. Fox occasionally falls when transferring to and from his wheelchair. Fox Deel. if 17. When Fox falls, he cannot get up without assistance. Id.

I

The fact that Fox is essentially helpless if he happens to fall is particularly worrisome to the

}

court.

Fox believes he may be released to a motel that is not ADA compliant. Fox Deel. if 3.
Perhaps because of this motion, defendants now confirm Fox's room will be ADA compliant.3

Fox believes he may be released without anyone to assist him in daily activities. Id. Fox cannot
obtain, let alone prepare, food without assistance. Fox Deel. if 11. While it now appears Fox will

be able to open his medications without assistance, there is a risk that Fox will not be able to pick

up his medications should he drop medications on the floor. Fox's doctor recommended that Fox
have assistance with daily activities such as get dressed and shopping for groceries. Fox Deel. if

16. This doctor, Doctor Michael Wilson evaluated Fox one week ago. This new evaluation

conflicts somewhat with the report ODOC previously worked off of in forming Fox's discharge

plan. That assessment summary evaluated Fox on 27 activities of daily living. Shelton Deel. if 9.

Based on that assessment, Fox did not qualify for assisted living services. Id. Dr. Wilson's

opinion, combined with Fox's declaration, demonstrates Fox requires at least some continued

supervision or assistance at this time.
3 I recognize the somewhat unusual steps ODOC took in responding to Fox's concerns. ODOC's actions alleviated many, but not all, of the concerns of Fox and the court.
3-0RDER

t
l
I
1
' I
t Forty years ago, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment requires state
prisons to provide adequate medical care to inmates. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). This affirmative duty imposed upon states arises from the limitations imposed by the state upon the inmate's "freedom to act on his own behalf." DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep 't ofSoc. Serv., 489 U.S. 189, 200 (1989). The duty to provide adequate medical care does not necessarily terminate once the inmate walks through the prison gate. Depending on the particular circumstances, a former inmate's inability to secure medical care "on his own behalf' may extend the state's duty to provide care beyond the period of confinement. Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 1999).
In Wakefield, a prison released an inmate without a two-week prescription of psychotropic medication because the prison was too busy to track down the medication before releasing the inmate. Id. at 1162. Eleven days after his release, the plaintiff suffered a relapse. The Ninth Circuit held the plaintiff stated a valid 1983 claim because the prison's actions supported a claim of deliberate indifference and because the Eight Amendment requires states "to provide outgoing prisoners being treated for a medical condition with a sufficient supply of medication to cover their transition to the outside world[.]" Id. at 1165.
Fox argues defendant Colette Peters, Director of the ODOC, will violate his constitutional rights by essentially dumping him alone into a motel room with little further assistance. At this point, I agree there is a grave risk of imminent harm and Fox has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on his claim that, absent an injunction, defendants will violate his constitutional rights. ODOC argues Umatilla County Community Corrections (UCCC) will be responsible for Fox upon his release. UCCC will meet Fox at the motel and assist in settling Fox in. UCCC will provide a box of food from a food bank and
4-0RDER

purchase additional items from Wallmart. Booth Deel. if 4. While this is somewhat encouraging,
the court is concerned about Fox's predicament after the initial settling in. There is little assurance that anyone will check in on Fox, perhaps for days or even weeks. While the parties and the court hope some state agency-whether UCCC or another agency such as DHS's Aging and People with Disabilities Unit-will monitor Fox, I am hesitant to rely on such hope here in the face of the potential for grave harm to Fox. Specifically, I am concerned that should Fox fall, he will not be able to get up. Should Fox drop his medications, he may not be able to pick them up. While a supply of protein shakes is a good step, I am also concerned that after the initial check-in, Fox may lack the ability to sustain himself.
That Fox has been housed either in a hospital or prison infirmary since July 2015 means defendants are aware that Fox requires extra assistance. Under these circumstances, placing Fox alone in a motel room without any confirmation of further check ins presents a risk of grave harm. As Fox is due to be released tomorrow, this risk is imminent. Given the above, I conclude Fox is entitled to some further assistance. As defendants cannot confirm at this point that anyone will continue to check in on Fox, I must enter this injunction requiring them to do so. While I am aware this sort of affirmative action on a prison is somewhat unusual, the circumstances here are unique. Under Wakefield, ODOC must provide some continued assistance when Fox is unable to provide for his own medical and basic human needs. Defendants must at least check in on Fox in some fashion. While requiring ODOC to check in on Fox could in fact save Fox's life, it will not be an enormous burden on ODOC.4 For the next two weeks, ODOC is ordered to check in on Fox two times per day. One contact may be by a phone call to Fox's motel. One contact must be
4 While this injunction will not unduly burden ODOC, I recognize it forces ODOC to take steps beyond its ordinary procedures. This, however, is no ordinary case. I encourage the parties to continue seeking creative solutions, as they have done in the past few days, to assure Fox has the assistance he requires.
5-0RDER
I
l

an in-person check in at the motel. Pendleton is less-than 40 miles from the Two Rivers

Correctional Institution. This minimal burden will alleviate the risk of grave harm to Fox should

he fall or drop his medications. The minimal time period will also bridge the gap between any

lack of services by UCCC or DHS.

CONCLUSION

I

The court GRANTS in part Fox's motion for an emergency preliminary injunction.

I

Through Friday, August 26, 2016, ODOC must conduct twice-daily check ins on Fox. One contact may be by phone but one contact must be in-person.

l

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 11 day of August, 2016.

l---
Michael J. McShane United States District Judge

6-0RDER

 
 Case 6:16-cv-1602 As of 12/11/2016 12:52 PM PST Page 1 of 3 Page ID#: <pageID>
U.S. District Court District of Oregon (Eugene (6)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE # 6:16−cv−01602−MC

Fox v. Peters et al Assigned to: Judge Michael J. McShane Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Steven Fox

Date Filed: 08/08/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Lynn S. Walsh 209 S.W. Oak Street Suite 400 Portland, OR 97204 503−790−2772 Fax: 503−227−6840 Email: walsh@europa.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Colette Peters
Defendant State of Oregon

represented by Vanessa A. Nordyke Oregon Department of Justice Trial Division 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301 503−947−4700 Fax: 503−947−7494 Email: vanessa.a.nordyke@doj.state.or.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Vanessa A. Nordyke (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/08/2016
08/08/2016
08/08/2016 08/08/2016
08/08/2016 08/08/2016

# Docket Text
1 Complaint. (In forma pauperis status selected) Jury Trial Requested: No. Filed by Steven Fox against All Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet). (Walsh, Lynn) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
2 Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order . Oral Argument requested.Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by Steven Fox. (Walsh, Lynn) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
3 Declaration of Steven Fox . Filed by Steven Fox. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 2 .) (Walsh, Lynn) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
4 Declaration of Lynn S. Walsh . Filed by Steven Fox. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 2 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2) (Walsh, Lynn) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
Filing fee in amount of $ 400.00 collected; Receipt No. 68605 issued. (msk) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
5 Scheduling Order by Judge Michael J. McShane regarding Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 2 . Oral Argument is set for 8/10/2016 at 03:30PM in Eugene Courtroom 2 before Judge Michael J. McShane. Ordered by Judge Michael

Case 6:16-cv-1602 As of 12/11/2016 12:52 PM PST Page 2 of 3 Page ID#: <pageID>

08/08/2016 08/09/2016 08/10/2016 08/10/2016 08/10/2016 08/10/2016 08/10/2016 08/10/2016
08/11/2016
08/12/2016 08/12/2016 08/12/2016
08/15/2016
08/31/2016 08/31/2016
09/01/2016

J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
6 Clerk's Notice of Mailing to Vanessa Nordyke via email regarding Scheduling, 5 . (cp) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
7 Verified Declaration of Steven Fox . Filed by Steven Fox. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 2 .) (Walsh, Lynn) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
8 Waiver of Service of Summons Returned Executed Filed by State of Oregon. (Nordyke, Vanessa) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
9 Declaration of Janet Reyna . Filed by Steven Fox. (Related document(s): Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 2 .) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Walsh, Lynn) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
10 Response to Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 2 . Filed by Colette Peters, State of Oregon. (Nordyke, Vanessa) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
11 Declaration of Steven Shelton MD . Filed by Colette Peters, State of Oregon. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 10 .) (Nordyke, Vanessa) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
12 Declaration of Cindy Booth . Filed by Colette Peters, State of Oregon. (Related document(s): Response to Motion 10 .) (Nordyke, Vanessa) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
13 MINUTES of Proceedings: Motion Hearing Held regarding Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 2 . Motion is taken under advisement as of 8/10/2016. Lynn S. Walsh present as counsel for plaintiff. Vanessa Nordyke present as counsel for defendants. Court Reporter: Deborah Bonds. Judge Michael J. McShane presiding. (cp) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
14 ORDER: The Court Grants in part Fox's Motion for an emergency preliminary injunction 2 . Through Friday, August 26, 2016, ODOC must conduct twice daily check ins on Fox. One contact may be by phone but one contact must be in−person. Signed on 8/11/2016 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
15 Motion to Modify Order (Docket #14). Filed by Colette Peters, State of Oregon. (Nordyke, Vanessa) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
16 Declaration of Dale Primmer . Filed by Colette Peters, State of Oregon. (Related document(s): Motion − Miscellaneous 15 .) (Nordyke, Vanessa) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
17 ORDER: Granting ODOC's Motion to Modify the Injuction 15 . The injunction is modified to state: ODOC must conduct twice−daily check−ins on plaintiff, or arrange to have a representative of the Umatilla County Community Corrections perform the twice daily check−ins, through August 26, 2016. Signed on 8/12/2016 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
18 Notice of Case Assignment to Judge Michael J. McShane and Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3−5. Discovery is to be completed by 12/13/2016. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 1/12/2017. Pretrial Order is due by 1/12/2017. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (ljb) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
19 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 1 . Filed by All Defendants. (Nordyke, Vanessa) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
20 Declaration of Vanessa A. Nordyke in Support of Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer . Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to Answer a Complaint/Petition 19 .) (Nordyke, Vanessa) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
21 ORDER: Granting Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer 19 . Answer is due by 9/14/2016. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) (Entered: 09/01/2016)

Case 6:16-cv-1602 As of 12/11/2016 12:52 PM PST Page 3 of 3 Page ID#: <pageID>

09/13/2016

22 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Filed by Steven Fox (Walsh, Lynn) (Entered: 09/13/2016)