Toth v. Schwarzenegger, et al.
Filing
9
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 3 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 9/7/11. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
R.C. (“Angela Brandywine”) Toth,
10
CASE NO.
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
11
v.
12
13
1:11-cv-247-MJS (PC)
Schwarzenegger, et. al.,
(ECF No. 3)
Defendants.
14
15
/
16
17
18
19
20
21
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff R.C. (“Angela Brandywine”) Toth (“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 filed this action on February 14, 2011. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) She1 also filed
a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction on the same day.
22
23
24
(Mot., ECF No. 3.) The Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), and no other parties have appeared in this action.
25
26
27
1
Plaintiff identifies herself as a transgender inm ate. She refers to herself using fem ale pronouns.
(Com pl. at 6.) The Court will do likewise.
-1-
1
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
2
and for a Preliminary Injunction filed on February 14, 2011. (Mot., ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff is
3
requesting a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order “to ensure that she
4
receives equal treatment.” (Id. At 2.) Plaintiff seeks to require “all departmental employees
5
6
to undergo sensitivity training and implement departmental regulations designed and
7
calculated at providing LGBTQ2 prisoners treatment and standards of living as is provided
8
to heterosexual prisoners,” among other requests. (Id.)
9
II.
10
11
ARGUMENT
In the Motion, Plaintiff states that she is a transgender prisoner currently housed at
Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”). She has been subjected to abusive, homophobic,
12
13
and discriminatory treatment from both staff and prisoners at PVSP as a result of their
14
prejudices and biases against LGBTQ prisoners. Plaintiff has been assaulted by prisoners
15
and battered and physically abused by staff because she is transgendered. She has been
16
deprived of equal protection and treatment under the law because of her sexuality and
17
sexual orientation. Plaintiff has been treated differently because she is a transsexual
18
prisoner. 3
19
Plaintiff asks the Court to require experts to meet with the California Department of
20
21
Corrections (“CDCR”), the entity responsible for running PVSP, and have the CDCR adopt
22
a certain standard of care for LGBTQ prisoners. Plaintiff’s proposed standard of care is
23
summarized, largely using her own words, as follows: 1) inmates should participate in
24
25
2
26
3
27
LGBTQ refers to “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning.”
In her Motion, Plaintiff refers to a declaration with additional facts, but no declaration was
attached to the Motion. (Mot at 2.)
-2-
1
mandatory tolerance and educational training, 2) CDCR should provide equal treatment
2
and religious inclusion, 3) CDCR should document whenever a LGBTQ prisoner is
3
victimized, 4) all CDCR institutions should enter into a contract to prosecute any inmate or
4
staff who attacks and victimizes a LGBTQ inmate for a hate crime, 5) CDCR should
5
6
acknowledge that LGBTQ inmates have a right to be treated equally, 6) CDCR should
7
include gay hate crimes in the third disciplinary matrix within the California Code of
8
Regulations title 15, 7) CDCR should acknowledge that LGBTQ inmates are taken into
9
consideration for every new policy implemented, 8) all LGBTQ inmates should receive a
10
copy of an orientation booklet that will outline and inform inmates of their rights and
11
responsibilities, this book should be signed for by each inmate who receives it, and it
12
should be updated annually, 9) CDCR should create a stronger presence of authority that
13
14
will intervene when LGBTQ prisoners are harassed and CDCR should post notifications
15
about sentences received by inmates convicted of LGBTQ hate crimes, 10) CDCR should
16
house certain LGBTQ inmates with inmates who have similar sensibilities, 11) libraries run
17
by the CDCR should have publications on current LGBTQ issues, 12) CDCR should
18
implement policies that find and remove predators and keep a record in a central database
19
of inmates known to prey on LGBTQ inmates, 13) CDCR should develop a curriculum for
20
21
annually training staff on LGBTQ tolerance, staff should be taught to use the proper
22
LGBTQ pronouns, and CDCR should keep a permanent record on staff found to be
23
abusing LGBTQ inmates, 14) CDCR should implement polices to address homophobia and
24
other issues, 15) CDCR should provide therapy for inmates with Gender Identity Disorder
25
26
and for LGBTQ inmates, 16) CDCR should implement policies to provide representatives
from each unit who will write daily logs, reports and monthly reports on LGBTQ issues, 17)
27
-3-
1
CDCR should keep statistical data on LGBTQ inmates, 18) CDCR should contact local
2
LGBTQ community centers to help LGBTQ inmates with reentry, 19) CDCR should work
3
to develop ties with local LGBTQ community centers, 20) appeals coordinators should be
4
trained about the special needs of LGBTQ inmates and there should be a private interview
5
6
with LGBTQ inmates who submit appeals, 21) CDCR should implement polices that forbid
7
punishing a LGBTQ inmate who refuses to accept a cell mate or to be placed in a
8
dangerous situation, 22) CDCR should make domestic partnerships as visible as
9
heterosexual marriage, 23) CDCR should use proper pronouns when dealing with
10
transgenders, provide hormone therapy, provide appropriate undergarments for
11
transgendered inmates, among other policy changes, 24) CDCR should implement policies
12
that protect LGBTQ inmates from being punished by changing their release date for non13
14
disciplinary reasons or circumstances beyond their control, 25) CDCR should have zero
15
tolerance for outing a prisoner, 26) CDCR should implement a contractual agreement for
16
LGBTQ inmates at local county jails, 27) CDCR should implement a strict compliance for
17
LGBTQ inmates once on parole, 28) CDCR should be prohibited from transferring or
18
housing any LGBTQ inmate out of state if the state does not provide similar rights as
19
provided to LGBTQ inmates in California, 29) CDCR should be prohibited from searching
20
21
transgender inmates and prison queens in front of male inmates and any searches
22
performed on transgendered inmates should be done with individuals who identify with that
23
gender, 30) CDCR should implement an ombudsperson at each institution who identifies
24
as LGBTQ themselves, and this individual should enforce compliance, act as an expert
25
26
and advocate, among other things, and 31) these recommendations should be
implemented within one year, and if they are not then the CDCR should report the name
27
-4-
1
of staff members who interfere with implementation to Plaintiff, the Court, and
2
organizations.
3
III.
4
LEGAL STANDARDS
Plaintiff requests both a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order
5
6
7
(“TRO”) motion in her Motion. The standards, and the Court’s analysis and conclusion,
below, are effectively the same for both.
8
A TRO may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that
9
party’s attorney only if: (1) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the
10
verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the
11
applicant before the adverse party or the party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and
12
13
(2) the applicant’s attorney certifies in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to
14
give notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required. See
15
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Otherwise the standards for a TRO are essentially the same as that
16
for a preliminary injunction.
17
18
To be entitled to preliminary injunctive relief, a party must demonstrate “that [she]
is likely to succeed on the merits, that [she] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
19
absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [her] favor, and that an
20
21
injunction is in the public interest.” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th
22
Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008)). The
23
Ninth Circuit has also held that the “sliding scale” approach it applies to preliminary
24
injunctions as it relates to the showing a plaintiff must make regarding her chances of
25
success on the merits survives Winter and continues to be valid. Alliance for Wild Rockies
26
v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2010). Under this sliding scale, the elements
27
-5-
1
of the preliminary injunction test are balanced. As relates to the merits analysis, a stronger
2
showing of irreparable harm to plaintiff might offset a lesser showing of likelihood of
3
success on the merits. Id.
4
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), in cases brought by prisoners
5
6
involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn,
7
extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary
8
relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. §
9
3626(a)(2).
10
11
IV.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff asks the Court to impose at this preliminary stage of the case a generalized
12
13
standard of care and conditions of confinement for LGBTQ prisoners to include 31 specific
14
reforms to the general prison system. Plaintiff claims that she meets all criteria necessary
15
to be granted injunctive relief in that: 1) without the Court’s help, Plaintiff will suffer
16
irreparable harm due to CDCR’s lack of policies to protect LGBTQ prisoners and CDCR’s
17
refusal to provide medical treatment for Plaintiff’s transgenderism; 2) the balance of
18
equities tip in her favor; 3) Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and 4) the relief
19
sought will serve the public interest.
20
21
Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the legal prerequisites for injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s
22
requested relief extends far beyond solving inequities Plaintiff contends she faces in prison
23
and well beyond the Court’s authority. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987) (“Prison
24
administration is...a task that has been committed to the responsibility of...[the legislative
25
and executive] branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial
26
restraint.”) She has not shown what, if any, injury, loss, or damage she might suffer if
27
-6-
1
interim relief is denied. She does not advise of efforts, if any, she has made to give
2
opposing parties notice of this Motion or why notice should be waived.
3
4
Plaintiff does allege that she will be irreparably harmed because of the CDCR’s acts
and deficient policies and because CDCR will not provide medical treatment for her
5
6
transgenderism. However, she does little more than allege; she does not show that the
7
perceived harm would be prevented if the relief she seeks were granted. She does not
8
show that she needs immediate medical care or that her health will suffer if it is denied.
9
Plaintiff also asks for general reforms in the prison system that would not impact her health
10
directly. But even if Plaintiff had established that there is a possibility of irreparable harm,
11
she does not satisfy the other prerequisites for injunctive relief.
12
Plaintiff states that the balance of hardships tips in her favor; she does not say, or
13
14
even imply, how that might be so. Inasmuch as Plaintiff’s injunction would effectively
15
necessitate an immediate and total reform of the CDCR prison system, it certainly would
16
impose a very substantial hardship on CDCR. Plaintiff does not show how any
17
counterbalancing hardship on her from a denial of interim relief would be greater.
18
Plaintiff also states that she is likely to succeed on the merits. There is no basis
19
upon which the Court can so conclude. The Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s
20
21
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The authorities cited by Plaintiff in support
22
of her request for injunctive relief – cases dealing with excessive force, freedom of
23
expression, and gender equality issues – do not even relate to the allegations in her
24
Complaint.
25
26
It is possible that the relief Plaintiff seeks will serve the public interest; the protection
of constitutional rights is a compelling public interest. See United States v. Raines, 362
27
-7-
1
U.S. 17, 27 (1960). However, Plaintiff’s requested relief goes beyond protecting Plaintiff’s
2
constitutional rights and extends beyond the Court’s jurisdiction. See Stormans, Inc., 586
3
F.3d at 1139 (Requested injunction would enjoin enforcement of regulations at issue
4
beyond the plaintiffs themselves, and would reach non-parties and implicate issues of
5
6
7
broader public concern. Court ultimately denied preliminary injunction because it was
overbroad.)
8
Indeed, Plaintiff’s requested relief is also not allowed under the PLRA. The PLRA
9
requires that any prospective relief in civil actions related to prison conditions “must be
10
narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds
11
requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.”
12
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008)
13
14
(“The PLRA both limits the prospective relief a court may order in [civil actions challenging
15
prison conditions], and authorizes the termination of relief that does not fall within those
16
limits.”). Plaintiff’s proposed standard of care and conditions of confinement go far beyond
17
correcting the potential harm that Plaintiff is individually facing, and instead goes to helping
18
LGBTQ prisoners all across the California prison system. Plaintiff’s motion must therefore
19
also be denied under the PLRA.
20
21
V.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary
22
23
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) is DENIED.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
27
Dated:
ci4d6
September 7, 2011
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-8-
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?