Williams v. The State of California et al
Filing
17
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 2 Plaintiff's Petition for an Emergency Injunction for Medical Care be DENIED Without Prejudice to Plaintiff's Right to Move Again in the Future if Medical Evidence Which Supports His Claims is Secured and Produces With Any Such Renewed Motion re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/26/2011. Referred to Judge Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 8/29/2011. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
DONALD B. WILLIAMS,
CASE NO.
1:11-cv-0182-OWW-MJS (PC)
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR
DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
14
(ECF No. 2)
Defendants.
15
/
16
17
18
19
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Donald B. Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff originally
20
filed this action on February 2, 2011. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On March 17, 2011, the Court
21
22
issued an Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with Leave to Amend, and Plaintiff was
23
ordered to file an amended complaint. (Order, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed his First
24
Amended Complaint on April 20, 2011. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 15.) The Court has not yet
25
screened the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), and no other
26
parties have appeared in this action.
27
-1-
1
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for an Emergency Injunction filed on
2
February 2, 2011. (Mot., ECF No. 2.) It appears that Plaintiff is requesting a preliminary
3
injunction or temporary restraining order. Plaintiff requests an “Emergency Injunction
4
5
Order” directing that he be given his medications, including the medicines he needs for
6
treatment of his diabetes. (Id.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on
7
April 20, 2011, requesting similar relief. (Mot., ECF No. 13.) The Court will deal with this
8
Motion in a separate order.
9
II.
10
ARGUMENT
In the Motion, Plaintiff complains:
11
12
He is currently housed at the California State Prison in Corcoran, California (“SATF”)
13
and he is not receiving any medical care for his diabetes. Plaintiff has been a Type 2
14
insulin-dependent diabetic since 2001. He suffers from both hypo- and hyper-glycemia,
15
i.e. low and high blood sugar levels. From approximately January 2010 to May 2010,
16
Plaintiff was housed at two different correctional institutions where he was treated with
17
insulin and provided with diabetic snacks.
18
19
On or about July 26, 2010, Plaintiff was transferred to SATF, where he is presently
20
housed. Plaintiff was initially treated at SATF with insulin and diabetic snacks. On or
21
about September 27, 2010, Plaintiff was determined, without any medical testing, to no
22
longer be diabetic. Nurse LeMay instructed the custody officers in Plaintiff’s dorm to
23
confiscate all of Plaintiff’s diabetes-related medications. Nurse LeMay acted on orders
24
from Physician’s Assistant Byers, who in turn acted on orders from the Chief Medical
25
26
27
-2-
1
Officer.1 All testing for diabetes was terminated in November 2010.
2
3
Thus, Plaintiff has not received any medical treatment for his diabetes since
September 27, 2010. His previously prescribed medicines have been confiscated. Plaintiff
4
5
is concerned about his health and alleges that he needs his diabetic medicines to “sustain
6
[l]ife” and to avoid reaching a “critical stage”. He requests an “Emergency Injunction Order”
7
directing that he be provided with his necessary medicines.
8
III.
9
10
LEGAL STANDARDS
The Court interprets Plaintiff’s Petition as a request for a preliminary injunction
and/or, more appropriately given the status of this case, a request for a temporary
11
12
13
restraining order. Regardless, the standards, and the Court’s analysis and conclusion,
below, are effectively the same for each.
14
Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy,
15
never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129
16
S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he
17
is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence
18
19
of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is
20
in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,
21
1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).
22
In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, the Prison
23
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires that any preliminary injunction "be narrowly drawn,
24
25
26
27
1
Nurse LeMay and Physicians Assistant Byers were not nam ed as defendants in Plaintiff’s
original Com plaint, and the Chief Medical Officer was not identified in the original Com plaint. (Com pl.,
ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has since nam ed Nurse LeMay and Physicians Assistant Byers as defendants and
identified the Chief Medical Officer. (Am . Com pl., ECF No. 15.)
-3-
1
extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary
2
relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm." 18 U.S.C. §
3
3626(a)(2).
4
5
IV.
ANALYSIS
6
The Court find that, at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the legal
7
prerequisites for injunctive relief. As noted, to succeed on such a motion, Plaintiff must
8
establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable
9
harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and
10
that an injunction is in the public interest. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles,
11
12
559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374).
13
Plaintiff’s has alleged irreparable harm if relief is denied, but the facts suggest
14
otherwise, and he has not, in any event, presented any basis for finding that the other three
15
prerequisites for injunctive relief are present.
16
17
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he will succeed on the merits of his case. His
primary allegation appears to rest on an Eighth Amendment claim that he has been denied
18
19
adequate medical treatment. “[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison
20
medical treatment, an inmate must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical
21
needs.”’ Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has not addressed
22
this issue in his moving papers. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint has not yet been
23
screened to evaluate whether it states a cognizable claim. Thus at this point, the Court has
24
no basis upon which to find a likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits.
25
26
Plaintiff does make the conclusory assertion that his health and his life will be at risk
27
-4-
1
if the injunction is not granted, but provides no information to support the bare claim;
2
nothing provided to the Court suggests he will suffer injury without his medications or that
3
the threat of injury is real and immediate, not conjectural and hypothetical. See, e.g., City
4
5
of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-102, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (1983). The fact that he
6
has not identified any specific adverse consequences of having gone without his
7
medication since September 2010 tends to belie his claim.
8
Plaintiff does not address the third or fourth elements, i.e., the balancing of equities
9
and public interest concerns. First, absent a showing sufficient to find harm to Plaintiff,
10
there is nothing to tip the balance of equities in Plaintiff’s favor. Second, while the public
11
12
has an interest in seeing everyone, including Plaintiff, receive the best practical medical
13
care, the Court can not make a determination on the facts before it as to the best medical
14
course for Plaintiff. At least one medical practitioner has determined that Plaintiff does not
15
need the treatment he seeks. The record before the Court does not justify the Court
16
substituting its judgment for that of the medical practitioner.
17
The various criteria not having been met, Plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary
18
injunctive relief.
19
20
V.
CONCLUSION
21
Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Petition
22
for an Emergency Injunction for Medical Care be DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff's
23
right to move again in the future if medical evidence which supports his claims is secured
24
and produced with any such renewed motion.
25
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District
26
27
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
-5-
1 thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party
2
3
may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations."
4
5
6
Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the
objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
7 may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Y1 st, 951 F.2d 1153
8 (9th Cir. 1991).
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12 Dated:
13 ci4d6
July 26, 2011
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-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?