Ahdom v. Lopez et al
Filing
84
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 48 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/27/2013. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
BILAL AHDOM,
10
11
12
Plaintiff,
v.
S. LOPEZ, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:09-cv-01874-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(ECF No. 48)
15
I.
Background
16
Plaintiff Bilal Ahdom (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court screened
18
Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint, filed on September 14, 2010, and found that it stated a
19
cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against
20
Defendants Araich, Chen Shittu, Ashby, S. Lopez, Spaeth, and Schaefer arising from events at
21
Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). (ECF No. 13, 31.) Defendants Lopez, Chen, Schaefer and
22
Spaeth answered the first amended complaint on July 19, 2012. (ECF No. 37.)
23
On September 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary injunction requesting an
24
order directing medical staff at Corcoran Substance Abuse Treatment Facility to provide him
25
with effective pain medications and proper housing. (ECF No. 48.)
26
27
On November 8, 2012, Defendant Ashby filed a motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint allegations against him. (ECF No. 53.)
28
1
On November 13, 2012, Defendants Shittu and Araich answered the first amended
1
2
complaint. (ECF No. 54.)
On June 26, 2013, the Court granted Defendant Ashby‟s motion to dismiss. The Court
3
4
dismissed Plaintiff‟s first amended complaint and granted him leave to amend his Eighth
5
Amendment claim against Defendant Ashby. (ECF No. 74.) On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed
6
a second amended complaint that named only Defendant Ashby. (ECF No. 77.)
7
As it was unclear whether Plaintiff intended to proceed solely against Defendant Ashby
8
or whether he failed to understand that he could continue to pursue his claims against all
9
defendants, the Court directed Plaintiff to inform the Court if he intended to proceed only against
10
Defendant Ashby or if he intended to proceed against all defendants, including Defendant
11
Ashby, and he required additional time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 78.)
12
On September 20, 2013, Plaintiff clarified his intent to file a third amended complaint
13
against all defendants and sought leave to amend. On September 23, 2013, the Court granted
14
Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 82.) The time
15
for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint has not passed.
16
II.
17
As noted above, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for temporary restraining order on
Discussion
18
September 17, 2012. By the motion, Plaintiff seeks an order to show cause directed at Corcoran
19
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) regarding discontinuance of his pain medication
20
and denial of appropriate housing. Plaintiff appears to seek reinstatement of certain pain
21
medication and a change in his housing assignment. Plaintiff‟s request is a form of injunctive
22
relief.
23
As a threshold matter, Plaintiff must establish that he has standing to seek preliminary
24
injunctive relief. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149
25
(2009) (citation omitted); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation
26
omitted). Plaintiff “must show that he is under threat of suffering „injury in fact‟ that is concrete
27
and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it
28
must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a
2
1
favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 493, 129 S.
2
Ct. at 1149 (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
3
Plaintiff currently does not have an operative complaint. However, the underlying
4
medical care claims at issue in this matter arise from events which occurred at KVSP. Plaintiff is
5
no longer housed at KVSP. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s request for injunctive relief directed at
6
remedying his current conditions of confinement at CSATF is beyond the scope of this action.
7
As a general rule, this court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to
8
a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110-12,
9
89 S.Ct. 1562, 1569-70 (1969).
10
III.
11
For the reasons identified above, Plaintiff‟s motion for a preliminary injunction is
12
Conclusion and Order
HEREBY DENIED.
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated: September 27, 2013
17
18
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
0m8i788
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?