3:25-cv-05406
W.D. Wash.Aug 6, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Michael W. Torell pled guilty in Clallam County Superior Court to offenses including tampering with a witness and violations of court orders, receiving 22 months in prison and 12 months of community custody.
- Plaintiff was supervised by the Department of Corrections (DOC) after release from prison, including GPS monitoring and a no-contact order with his wife due to repeated violations.
- Plaintiff filed suit pro se, was granted in forma pauperis status, and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunctive relief alleging unlawful continued GPS monitoring and denial of marital contact after his community custody had purportedly ended.
- The court required Plaintiff to serve Defendants before considering TRO; Plaintiff served Lovell but not others.
- During the pendency of the motions, Plaintiff’s community custody ended and the GPS device was removed; he was no longer subject to DOC supervision or restrictions challenged in his motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of Equitable Relief | Plaintiff subjected to unlawful monitoring and restrictions after custody ended | Plaintiff is no longer under supervision; claims are moot | Motions denied as moot |
| Injury/Standing | Continued GPS monitoring and restrictions cause ongoing harm | No ongoing injury; supervision and monitoring have ended | No live controversy; relief is moot |
| Success on Merits | DOC unlawfully extended post-release conditions and controls | Plaintiff cannot succeed; relief cannot address past harms | Plaintiff failed to show likelihood of success |
| Scope of Relief | Sought broad injunction barring contact, monitoring, and tolling of custody | No ongoing conduct to enjoin | Court declines to issue relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) (Article III requires a live case or controversy; mootness doctrine applies)
- Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365 (9th Cir. 1995) (Release from custody generally moots claims for injunctive relief relating to prison conditions)
- U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) (A claim is moot when no live issue or interest remains)
- Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2012) (Declaratory relief claims are also moot if plaintiff is no longer subject to challenged conditions)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (Plaintiff must show likelihood of success on the merits for preliminary injunction)