Williams v. The State of California et al

Filing 49

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS for Denial of Plaintiff's 13 MOTION for an Emergency Injunction, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/4/2012, referred to Judge O'Neil. Objections Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DONALD B. WILLIAMS,

11

CASE NO.

Plaintiff,

12

1:11-cv-0182-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR
DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

v.

13
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

(ECF No. 13)

14
Defendants.

15

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
/

16
17
18

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

19

Plaintiff Donald B. Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

20

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff originally

21

filed this action on February 2, 2011. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On March 17, 2011, the Court

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
25
26

Amended Complaint on April 20, 2011. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 15.) On August 29, 2011,
the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

27
-1-

1

1915(A)(a), and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim. (Order, ECF No. 20.) Thus,

2

this action is currently proceeding against Defendants Enenmoh, Faria, LeMay, Byers and

3

Oneyeje for allegedly violating the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference

4
5
6

to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. (Id.) Defendants Enenmoh, Faria, LeMay, and
Oneyeje have since been served and filed an Answer. (ECF Nos. 33 & 35.)1

7

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed on

8

April 20, 2011. (Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction,

9

directing that the Court order Defendants to provide Plaintiff and other inmates with “all

10

needed medical attention and meet all medical needs.” (Id. at 2.) In conjunction with his

11
12

Motion, Plaintiff has also filed a Memorandum of Law. (Pl.’s Mem. of Law, ECF No. 14.)

13

Defendants Faria, LeMay, Onyeje, and Enenmoh (collectively, “Defendants”) have filed an

14

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. (Defs.’ Op, ECF No. 44.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230, the

15

time in which Plaintiff could have filed a reply has passed without Plaintiff having done so.

16

Plaintiff’s Motion is now before the Court.

17

II.

ARGUMENT

18
19

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges:

20

On or about July 26, 2010, he was transferred to California State Prison in

21

Corcoran, California (“SATF”) where he is presently housed. (Am. Compl. at 7.) Plaintiff

22

has been a Type 2 insulin-dependent diabetic since 2001. (Id. at 5.) He suffers from both

23

hypo- and hyper-glycemia, i.e. low and high blood sugar levels. (Id.) On or about

24
25
26
27

1

The Court also found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Byers.
Defendant Byers has filed an Answer (ECF No. 42) and joined in the other Defendants’ Motion to Dism iss
(ECF No. 45), but did not join the other Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Prelim inary
Injunction.

-2-

1

September 27, 2010, he was determined, without any medical testing, to no longer be

2

diabetic. (Id. at 7-8.) Nurse LeMay instructed the custody officers in Plaintiff’s dorm to

3

confiscate all of Plaintiff’s diabetes-related medications. (Id. at 9.) Nurse LeMay acted on

4
5

orders from Physician’s Assistant Byers, who in turn acted on orders from the Chief

6

Medical Officer. (Id. at 6-9.) Testing for diabetes in Plaintiff was terminated in November

7

2010. Plaintiff has not received any medical treatment for his diabetes since September

8

27, 2010. (Id. at 9.)

9
10

In the Motion, Plaintiff contends that the medical needs of him and other inmates
on SATF Yard-B have not been met for more than twenty weeks. (Mot. at 1.) The denial

11
12

of that care constitutes deliberate indifference to a serious harm. (Id.) Plaintiff asks the

13

Court to order Defendants to provide Plaintiff and other inmates with the medical care that

14

they require.

15

September 27, 2010 to February 26, 2011.2 (Pl.’s Mem. of Law at 2.) Plaintiff contends

16

he was threatened with harm if he tried to go to the medical offices for treatment, and that

17

(Id.)

Plaintiff contends that he received no medical treatment from

he was denied treatment from various other sources. (Id.) As a result, Plaintiff has

18
suffered from headaches, blurred eyes, temporary blindness, constipation, lethargy, and
19
20

depression. (Id. at 3.)

21

In their opposition, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has received appropriate

22

treatment for his medical condition. (Defs.’ Op. at 3.) Defendants submit a declaration

23

from Defendant Enenmoh detailing the medical care Plaintiff received at SATF. (Enenmoh

24
25
2

26
27

It is unclear whether Plaintiff alleges he is currently receiving treatm ent for his diabetes. His
Motion im plies treatm ent resum ed on February 26, 2011. His Am ended Com plaint seem s to com plain
that as of its filing date in April 2011 he still was not receiving treatm ent.

-3-

1

Dec., ECF No. 44-1) Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s treatment was only altered, not

2

stopped, because insulin and diabetic snacks were inappropriate and potentially harmful

3

for Plaintiff. (Defs.’ Op. at 4; Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 7-9.) Defendants contend that SATF

4
5

medical staff determined that Plaintiff’s diabetes could be controlled with diet and exercise.

6

(Id.) Plaintiff’s medication was removed from his cell for direct distribution to him because

7

medical staff determined that he was hoarding his medications instead of taking them as

8

directed. (Defs.’ Op. at 4; Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 10.) SATF staff directly gave him

9

medication in place of insulin. (Id.; Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 4.) He was given Metformin to

10

control his diabetes and a number of other medications. (Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 4-5.) Plaintiff

11
12

was not precluded from obtaining medical treatment. (Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 6.) SATF

13

medical staff regularly monitor Plaintiff’s blood sugar levels. (Id.)

14

III.

LEGAL STANDARDS

15

Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy,

16

never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129

17

S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he

18
19

is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence

20

of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is

21

in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,

22

1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).

23
24

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires that any preliminary injunction "be narrowly drawn,

25
extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary
26
27

relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm." 18 U.S.C. §
-4-

1

3626(a)(2).

2

IV.

3

ANALYSIS
The Court find that, at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the legal

4
5

prerequisites for injunctive relief. As noted, to succeed on such a motion, Plaintiff must

6

establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable

7

harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and

8

that an injunction is in the public interest. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles,

9

559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374).

10

Plaintiff makes conclusory statements regarding these elements, but provides no

11
12

facts which would enable the Court to find that he is in need of and entitled to the injunctive

13

relief he seeks. He does not address the evidence from Defendants (and even the

14

suggestion in his own moving papers) that he currently is receiving the medical treatment

15

he requires.

16
17

To succeed on the merits on a claim of inadequate medical care, Plaintiff needs to
show “‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,

18
19

1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976)).

20

The two part test for deliberate indifference requires Plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious medical

21

need’ by demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further

22

significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s

23

response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting

24

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds,

25
WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal
26
27

quotations omitted)).
-5-

1

To show deliberate indifference, Plaintiff must show “a purposeful act or failure to

2

respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the

3

indifference.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). “Deliberate indifference is a high

4
5

legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). “Under this

6

standard, the prison official must not only ‘be aware of the facts from which the inference

7

could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’ but that person ‘must also

8

draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.

9

Ct. 1970 (1994)). “‘If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then

10

the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id.

11
12
13

(quoting Gibson v. Cnty. of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that he is not receiving insulin and diabetic snacks he needs

14

to control his diabetes.

15

treatment, albeit in a form recommended by medical staff which is different than what

16

Plaintiff thinks he should receive.

17

Defendants respond that Plaintiff is receiving appropriate

Thus, instead of a failure to treat, it appears there is here only a disagreement over

18
the course of treatment elected. A prisoner’s mere disagreement with diagnosis or
19
20

treatment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d

21

240, 241 (9th Cir. 1989.) Given these facts and applicable law, the Court at this point has

22

no basis upon which to find a likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits.

23
24

For similar reasons, Plaintiff cannot establish the other three requirements for an
injunction.

Plaintiff has not shown that he will suffer an injury without the Court’s

25
intervention, because it appears that he is receiving appropriate treatment for his diabetes.
26
27

Plaintiff has not acknowledged the alternate treatment, nor suggested if or how it might
-6-

1

cause him injury. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-102 (1983) (To

2

obtain injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show that he will be subject to a real and immediate

3

threat). Given Defendants’ unrebutted allegations that Plaintiff is currently receiving

4
5
6

treatment, there is no basis to conclude Plaintiff is subject to a real and immediate threat.
Plaintiff has not met this requirement.

7

As to the third element, i.e., the balancing of equities, the absence of a showing of

8

harm from the treatment being provided leaves nothing to tip the balance of equities in

9

Plaintiff’s favor. As to the fourth element, while the public has an interest in seeing

10

everyone, including Plaintiff, receive the best practical medical care, the Court can not

11
12

make a determination on the facts before it as to the best medical course for Plaintiff. At

13

least one medical practitioner has determined that Plaintiff’s condition is best treated

14

without diabetic snacks and non-insulin drugs. The record before the Court does not justify

15

the Court substituting its judgment for that of the medical practitioner.

16
17

The various criteria not having been met, Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary
injunctive relief.

18
19

V.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

20

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion

21

for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 13) be DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff's right

22

to move again in the future if medical evidence which supports his claims is secured and

23

produced with any such renewed motion.

24

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District

25
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
26
27

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party
-7-

1 may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document
2
3

should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations."
Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the

4
5
6

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time
may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Y1 st, 951 F.2d 1153

7 (9th Cir. 1991).
8
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11 Dated:
ci4d6
12

April 4, 2012

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-8-