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)

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

.