McCoy v. Kelso, et al.
Filing
58
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Plaintiff's 49 Motion for Injunctive Relief, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/25/14, referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSEPH RAY McCOY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
GONZALES, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
25
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Document 49)
THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his complaint on June 19, 2012. This action is
proceeding on an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Stronach,
Gonzales, LeMay, Beltran, Fisher, Snell and Tann.
Defendants filed an answer on August 6, 2014, and the action is currently in the discovery
phase.
23
24
Case No.: 1:12cv00983 AWI DLB (PC)
Plaintiff Joseph Raymond McCoy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
21
22
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
On July 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief. Defendants opposed the motion
on August 5, 2014. Plaintiff did not file a reply, and the motion is submitted pursuant to Local Rule
230(l).
26
27
28
1
1
2
DISCUSSION
A.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Legal Standard
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. Winter v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation and
quotation marks omitted). For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish
standing. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009) (citation
omitted); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
This requires Plaintiff to show that he is under threat of suffering an injury in fact that is concrete and
particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly
traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial
11
decision will prevent or redress the injury. Summers, 129 S.Ct. at 1149 (quotation marks and citation
12
omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
13
Further, any award of equitable relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which
14
15
16
17
18
provides in relevant part, “Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall
extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or
plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such
relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right,
19
and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. §
20
3626(a)(1)(A).
21
B.
22
Analysis
Plaintiff’s motion sets forth one specific claim for relief- Plaintiff contends that Defendants
23
have failed to issue “footwear conducive to meet his serious medical needs” and that as a result, he has
24
received numerous Rules Violation Reports for failing to report to work. He states that he is being
25
“forced to labor without issuance” of appropriate footwear. ECF No. 49, at 5-6. Plaintiff requests an
26
order from the Court directing Defendant Tann’s successor to ensure that he is issued appropriate
27
footwear to “enable him to safely participate in work, education and vocational assignment, including
28
2
1
2
but not limited to ‘transportation, medical appointment, meal and personal hygiene which have been
left untreated for approximately five years and counting.” ECF No. 49, at 6-7.
3
4
In his attached declaration, Plaintiff states that he only has “state-issued socks” to protect his
feet because “any attempt to place state issued boots/tennis shoes on [his] feet” causes swelling,
5
irritation and pain. ECF No. 49, at 11.
6
This action, which forms the basis of the requirements for injunctive relief, is proceeding on
7
8
9
10
Plaintiff’s claims related to medical care he received for his foot in 2009. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
complaints about Rules Violations Reports received for various reasons are outside of the scope of this
litigation and cannot be addressed herein.
Insofar as Plaintiff’s complaints relate to medical care for his foot, he has not shown that he is
11
12
under threat of actual and imminent injury, and that such threat is fairly traceable to any Defendant.
13
Summers, 129 S.Ct. at 1149 (quotation marks and citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.
14
Plaintiff contends that he needs appropriate footwear “conducive to his serious medical needs,” and
15
that when he attempts to place state-issued footwear on his feet, they become swollen, irritated and
16
painful. EFC No. 49, at 6, 11. However, there is no evidence that Plaintiff requires any additional
17
footwear. Plaintiff’s exhibits are comprised mainly of Rules Violation Reports from 2009 through
18
2013 for failing to report to work, and he submits no medical evidence to demonstrate that he is, in
19
fact, threatened with a concrete and particularized injury from any Defendant.1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Defendants object to Plaintiff’s evidence as unauthenticated and irrelevant, and because some documents contain
hearsay. Defendants’ objections are overruled. While the records are subject to authentication under Rule 901(b)(6), the
Court notes the absence of any evidence or argument suggesting the existence of a legitimate challenge to the records on
authentication grounds. See Chamberlain v. Les Schwab Tire Center of California, Inc., No. 2012 WL 6020103, at *2
(E.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Burch v. Regents of Univ. of California, 433 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1120 (E.D. Cal. 2006)) (rejecting
“purely procedural” authentication objection). Moreover, the Court is not relying on statements other than those made by
Plaintiff.
3
1
RECOMMENDATION
2
3
For these reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief be
DENIED.
4
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
5
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the
court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.
1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
15
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
August 25, 2014
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?