Gonzales v. Podsakoff, et al.

Filing 66

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 47 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction be DENIED Without Prejudice re 26 Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/13/2018. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MICHAEL GONZALES, Plaintiff, 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. 11 12 Case No. 1:15-cv-00924-SKO (PC) PODSAKOFF, et al., (Doc. 47) Defendants. 13 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 14 15 16 FINDINGS I. Introduction 17 Plaintiff, Michael Gonzales, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff proceeds in this action based on 19 allegations that the defendants involuntarily tainted his food with antipsychotic medications at 20 California State Prison in Corcoran, California (“CSP-Cor”) without a Keyhea order.1 On August 21 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking injunctive relief. (Doc. 47.) Defendants did not file an 22 opposition within the permitted time period. Plaintiff’s motion is deemed submitted. L.R. 230(l). 23 In his motion, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants and others” continue to engage in 24 activities tainting his food with antipsychotic medication, placing him in imminent danger of 25 harm because it is burning his esophagus. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “Nurse Gonzales et al. 26 27 28 1 Keyhea v. Rushen, 178 Cal.App.3d 526, 542 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986), sets forth the substantive and procedural safeguards which must be adhered to when the state seeks to involuntarily medicate state prisoners with long-term psychotropic medications. Such courts orders are commonly known as “Keyhea orders.” 1 1 nurses have started medicating” his Mintox tablets so that now even his antacids are burning and 2 damaging his esophagus. 3 II. Discussion Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 4 5 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 6 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 7 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church 8 and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 9 18 U.S.C. ' 3626 (a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court 10 ensure the relief “is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of 11 the Federal Right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal 12 Right.” 13 The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison personnel in 14 general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 492-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United 15 States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). “A federal court may issue an injunction if it has 16 personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not 17 attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States 18 Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). The Court’s jurisdiction is thus limited 19 to the parties in this action and to the cognizable legal claims upon which it proceeds. Summers, 20 129 S.Ct. at 1148-49; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Hence, to the extent Plaintiff’s motion is based 21 on the actions of “others” and “et al nurses” it must be denied for lack of jurisdiction. 22 23 Further, “[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as a matter of right.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citations 24 omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 25 on the merits and to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance 26 of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id., at 24 (citations 27 and quotations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the 28 plaintiff is entitled to such relief. Id., at 22. 2 1 Plaintiff has attached a few pages of his medical records to his motion. However, Plaintiff 2 neither attaches a declaration from a qualified medical professional explaining his medical 3 condition and its cause, nor provides any basis to support a finding that he is qualified to render 4 such opinions. Fed. R. Evid. 702. As such, Plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of success 5 on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm, a balance of equities in his favor, or that an 6 injunction is in the public interest. RECOMMENDATIONS 7 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 8 9 injunction, filed on August 28, 2017, (Doc. 47), be denied without prejudice. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 10 11 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 12 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written 13 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 14 Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 15 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 16 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 Dated: February 13, 2018 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?