Applegate v. Koker et al

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 10 , 11 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/10/15. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRIAN C. APPLEGATE,

12
Plaintiff

13
v.

14
15

WINFRED KOKOR,

16

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01054-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(ECF NOS. 10-11)

Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

19

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth

20

Amendment deliberate indifference claim and First Amendment retaliation claim against

21

Defendant Dr. Winfred Kokor. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) Plaintiff has consented to the

22

undersigned’s jurisdiction. (ECF No. 5.) Pending before the Court are motions for a

23

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.1 (ECF Nos. 10-11.)

24

I.

LEGAL STANDARDS

25

The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a temporary

26

restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the moving

27

party must show either a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying controversy

28

1

These motions appear to be duplicative of each other.

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the
balance of hardships tips sharply in the movant's favor. See Coalition for Economic
Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle
Publ'g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two
points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury shown.
See Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. Under any formulation of the test, however, the
moving party must demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.
See id. In the absence of a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the court

8
need not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. See id. The loss of
9
money, or an injury whose measure of damages can be calculated in terms of money, will
10

not be considered irreparable. See id. at 1334-35.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

The standard for a temporary restraining order is essentially the same. The
purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo pending a
more complete hearing. The cases contain limited discussion of the standards for issuing
a temporary restraining order due to the fact that very few such orders can be appealed
prior to a full hearing. It is apparent however, that requests for temporary restraining
orders are governed by the same general standards that govern the issuance of a
preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 U.S. 1345,
1347 n.2 (1977); Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d
1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting); Century Time Ltd. v. Interchron Ltd.,

20

729 F. Supp. 366, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). In many cases the emphasis of the court is

21

directed to irreparable harm and the balance of hardships because the merits of a

22

controversy are often difficult to ascertain and adjudicate on short notice.

23

II.

DISCUSSION

24

1.

25

The actions that give rise to Plaintiff’s complaint occurred while he was housed at

26

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (CSATF) in Corcoran, California. He is

27

currently incarcerated at California Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi, California

28

The essence of Plaintiff’s claim is that, in light of his longstanding health problems, he

Allegations in the Complaint

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

has held multiple accommodation chronos since 2007, including lower bunk, lower tier,
orthotic shoe, an ankle brace chronos, as well as “ADA status,” which entitles him to use
a handicapped shower and not climb stairs. In January 2014, these chronos were
renewed for one year. Upon his transfer to CSATF, Dr. Kokor rescinded Plaintiff’s lower
tier chrono and his ADA status with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s health and in
retaliation for Plaintiff’s assertion that he has sued in the past and will sue in the future if
he receives inadequate medical care. Plaintiff suffered injury as a result of Dr. Kokor’s
conduct.

8
2.

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

9
In his motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, Plaintiff
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

requests an order to force officials at CCI to schedule an appointment with a podiatrist
and a neurologist to determine his immediate need for certain treatment, care, and
accommodations. Plaintiff claims that, absent these specialty evaluations, his condition
will continue to go untreated, and he may suffer further injury.
3.

Analysis

Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief must be denied.
Plaintiff bases the instant motion on a claim that staff members at CCI are refusing
to schedule Plaintiff for specialty evaluations. Such a claim is unrelated to the claims

18

asserted in the complaint – namely, that Dr. Kokor improperly revoked Plaintiff’s chronos

19

and ADA status. It is appropriate to grant a preliminary injunction “intermediate relief of

20

the same character as that which may be granted finally.” De Beers Consol. Mines v.

21

U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). A court should not issue an injunction when the relief

22

sought is not of the same character and the injunction deals with a matter lying wholly

23

outside the issues in the underlying action. Id.

24

Also, absent a substantial relationship, not present here, a court may not enter an

25

injunction against persons who are not parties to the case before it, See Zepeda v. U.S.

26

INS, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1984). The officials Plaintiff wants to have subjected to

27

the Court’s injunctive powers are not parties to this action.

28

Lastly, Plaintiff’s claim that his condition may deteriorate if untreated is
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

speculative. It does not reach the level of pleading irreparable harm necessary for the
issuance of injunctive relief. See Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668,
674 (9th Cir. 1988); Goldie's Bookstore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 739 F.2d 466, 472 (9th
Cir. 1984).
III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 10-11) are DENIED.

8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10
11

Dated:

November 10, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4