Aurelio Martin Sepulveda v. James Lee
Filing
75
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 66 is DENIED. The Court refers the remainder of plaintiff's outstanding requests and motions to Magistrate Judge Walsh for ruling. (gk)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
WESTERN DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
AURELIO MARTIN SEPULVEDA
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
JAMES LEE, M.D., ET AL.;
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )
)
Case No. EDCV 10-1705 CAS (PJW)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
19
20
I.
INTRODUCTION
21
On November 8, 2010, plaintiff Aurelio Martin Sepulveda, then an inmate at
22
Ironwood State Prison (“Ironwood”) in Blythe, California, filed this civil rights suit
23
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants James Lee, M.D., N. Williams, M.D., M.
24
Tolentino, a supervising Registered Nurse, Nurse Tennefos, Nurse Johnson, Nurse
25
Morales, J. Obaiza, M.D. and Nurse Combs in their individual and official capacities.
26
Dkt. No. 3. All of these individuals are medical personnel employed by the California
27
Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) at Ironwood. Plaintiff claims
28
that defendants (1) violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and
1
unusual punishment by acting with deliberate indifference towards his medical needs;
2
(2) violating his First Amendment right to submit a prison grievance by retaliating
3
against him with respect to his medical care. Compl. ¶¶ 128–143. The suit was referred
4
to Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh.
5
On February 4, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss this action; plaintiff filed an
6
opposition to defendants’ motion thereafter. On July 27, 2011, Magistrate Judge Walsh
7
issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal of a number of
8
defendants and the majority of plaintiff’s claims. Dkt. No. 34. On October 6, 2011, the
9
Court adopted the R&R over plaintiff’s objection. Dkt. No. 40. Magistrate Judge Walsh
10
adopted a scheduling order on November 28, 2011. Thereafter, Magistrate Judge Walsh
11
granted plaintiff’s first and second requests to amend the scheduling order. Dkt. Nos.
12
54, 56.
13
On September 25, 2012, plaintiff filed a third request to amend the scheduling
14
order. Dkt. No. 57. Before obtaining a ruling on this request, on December 17, 2012,
15
plaintiff filed a fourth request to amend the scheduling order along with a request for a
16
preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 61. Defendant opposed plaintiff’s request for a
17
preliminary injunction on January 3, 2013. Dkt. No. 63. On January 8, 2013, plaintiff
18
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion for leave to amend his
19
complaint. Dkt. No. 66. Defendants opposed both of plaintiff’s motions on February 8,
20
2013. Dkt. Nos. 69, 70.
21
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on January 8, 2013. Plaintiff
22
has yet to file an opposition.
23
II.
24
BACKGROUND
The facts underlying plaintiff’s suit are set forth more fully in Judge Walsh’s
25
Report and Recommendation, filed on July 27, 2011, recommending that defendants’
26
motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, which the Court adopted in full.
27
Plaintiff’s remaining claim is against defendants Lee, Williams, Tolentino, and Combs
28
2
1
for retaliation. In support of this claim, plaintiff alleges that the aforementioned
2
defendants “changed his blood sugar regimen to require twice daily fingersticks in
3
retaliation for plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment right to file a prison grievance
4
against Nurse Tennefos.” R&R at 17 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 140–141). Plaintiff alleged he
5
suffered physical and psychological harm as a result of defendants’ actions, and that
6
there was no legitimate basis for the new regimen. The Court found that “[l]iberally
7
construed and taken as true, these allegations state a retaliation claim.” Id. at 18. The
8
Court disregarded defendants’ contention that they were simply attempting to provide
9
proper medical care, as the Court was bound to accept plaintiff’s version of the events in
10
question for purposes of a motion to dismiss. Id.
11
In his initial request for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff claims that defendant
12
Lee has continued to retaliate against him and seeks an order “directing Defendant Lee
13
to stop Retaliating against Plaintiff, and that he not be allowed by his Superiors to
14
involve himself in any Decisions made or Appeals submitted by Plaintiff concerning the
15
Treatment of Plaintiff’s Medical Conditions. Dkt. No. 61 at 4. Plaintiff alleges that he
16
had been seen by Dr. Rohrdanz, who issued a “chrono” accommodating plaintiff’s
17
medical needs, but when this order was forwarded to Dr. Lee, he modified the order
18
finding that plaintiff was not prevented from “proning out” on the floor. Id. at 3.
19
Plaintiff also claims that Dr. Lee was involved in wrongfully denying a second-level
20
review of plaintiff’s administrative complaint, and that while the record in one of
21
plaintiff’s appeals indicated that Dr. Lee had approved a steroid injection for him, no
22
such injection was ever provided. Id. at 6.
23
Plaintiff then filed a detailed motion for a preliminary injunction on January 8,
24
2013, contending that Dr. Lee has continued to systematically retaliate against him. Dkt.
25
No. 66. Plaintiff claims that a physician recommended him to an off-site specialist to
26
treat his pain symptoms, but that Dr. Lee denied plaintiff access to such treatment. Id. at
27
7. According to plaintiff, Dr. Lee knows that the failure to refer plaintiff to off-site
28
3
1
providers will cause him unnecessary pain and suffering, as well as restrict his ability to
2
function, but that Dr. Lee has persisted in refusing plaintiff treatment. Id. at 8. Plaintiff
3
further contends that Dr. Lee has wrongfully denied him opiate-based medication despite
4
his severe pain symptoms and directed his staff to provide plaintiff with anti-psychotic
5
medications instead. Id. at 11–13. Plaintiff submits a detailed affidavit in support of his
6
motion.
7
On February 5, 2013, plaintiff was transferred to the California Institution for
8
Men in Chino, California. Dkt. No. 72.
9
III.
10
LEGAL STANDARD
A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy.” Winter v. Natural Res.
11
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction
12
must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer
13
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in
14
his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v.
15
City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Cal Pharms. Ass’n v.
16
Maxwell-Jolly, 563 F.3d 847, 849 (9th Cir. 2009). Alternatively, “‘serious questions
17
going to the merits’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can
18
support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are
19
also met.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir.
20
2011). A “serious question” is one on which the movant “has a fair chance of success on
21
the merits.” Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th
22
Cir. 1984). Under either formulation, demonstrating a likelihood of success on the
23
merits and irreparable harm is “most critical.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434
24
(2009).
25
Further limits to the Court’s power to issue a preliminary injunction are contained
26
in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Under this section:
27
///
28
4
1
The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court
2
finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary
3
to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means
4
necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give
5
substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation
6
of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.
7
Id.
8
IV.
9
10
11
DISCUSSION
After reviewing plaintiff’s submissions and defendants’ responses thereto, the
Court concludes that a preliminary injunction should not issue in this case. .
First, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction appears to be moot, as
12
plaintiff no longer resides at the Ironwood State Prison in Blythe, California. All of
13
allegations supporting plaintiff’s motion concern the medical staff at Ironwood, who are
14
no longer involved in the provision of plaintiff’s medical care or the consideration of
15
plaintiff’s administrative complaints and appeals. Because plaintiff now resides at a new
16
facility, there appears to be no risk of any retaliation by the medical staff at Ironwood
17
against plaintiff, either through the alleged withholding of medical care in retaliation for
18
plaintiff’s previous complaints or through further denials of plaintiff’s numerous
19
administrative appeals. Accordingly, there appears to be no risk of future irreparable
20
injury, which negates any need for injunctive relief at present.
21
Second, even if plaintiff’s motion were not moot, the Court finds that plaintiff has
22
failed to carry his burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits of his
23
claims remaining claim for retaliation. “Within the prison context, a viable claim of
24
First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state
25
actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s
26
protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First
27
Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate
28
5
1
correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff
2
has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the first element of his claim, which
3
arises out of plaintiff’s allegation that defendants changed his insulin testing regimen in
4
response to plaintiff’s filing of administrative complaints against various defendants, all
5
members of the prison’s medical staff. This is unrelated to the substance of plaintiff’s
6
preliminary injunction request, which concerns later alleged actions taken in response to
7
plaintiff’s administrative complaints, and therefore is an improper basis for seeking
8
injunctive relief unrelated to the substance of plaintiff’s complaint. Even considering the
9
totality of plaintiff’s allegations in his complaint and assertions in his declaration,
10
however, plaintiff has not demonstrated that prison medical staff took adverse actions
11
against him. What plaintiff has demonstrated is that he frequently disagrees with the
12
decisions of the medical staff at Ironwood, but this alone would not support a successful
13
retaliation claim, nor the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
14
V.
15
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is
16
DENIED. The Court refers the remainder of plaintiff’s outstanding requests and
17
motions to Magistrate Judge Walsh for ruling.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated: May 6, 2013
21
_______________________
22
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?