Estrada v. Macias et al

Filing 87

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/3/2017 recommending that 86 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION be denied. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 5/8/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ESTRADA, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. TERESA MACIS, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-01292-AWI-SAB (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER BE DENIED [ECF No. 86] Plaintiff David Estrada is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, filed March 31, 2017. 21 I. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A preliminary injunction should not issue unless necessary to prevent threatened injury that 24 would impair the court’s ability to grant effective relief in a pending action. “A preliminary injunction 25 … is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but rather a device for preserving the status quo and 26 preventing the irreparable loss of right before judgment.” Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, 27 Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). A preliminary injunction represents the exercise of a far 28 reaching power not to be indulged except in a case clearly warranting it. Dymo Indus. V. Tapeprinter, 1 1 Inc., 326 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1964). “The proper legal standard for preliminary injunctive relief 2 requires a party to demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer 3 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and 4 that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc., v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 5 2009), quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). In cases brought by 6 prisoners 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 relief, and be 8 the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 9 This action is proceeding against Defendants Garnett, Whitford, Vickjord, and Flores for 10 deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment. While the 11 Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical care, the Eighth 12 Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference to an inmate’s 13 serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled in part on 14 other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 15 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff “must 16 show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition could result in 17 further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the 18 defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 19 439 F.3d at 1096). Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a 20 prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 21 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective 22 recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and 23 quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 24 In his motion, Plaintiff requests a court order to allow him to be sent to a specialist for brain 25 injuries and ear nose and throat treatment. Despite Plaintiff’s opinions as to what the proper medical 26 treatment is, there is no indication that Plaintiff is in immediate need of the treatment he seeks and is 27 under significant threat of irreparable harm without the referral to a specialist. Thus, Plaintiff has not 28 made the showing required to meet his burden as the party moving for preliminary injunctive relief. 2 1 Plaintiff has also not demonstrated that the balance of equities tips in his favor, or that an injunction is 2 in the public interest. As Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proving that he is entitled to a 3 preliminary injunction, his motion must be denied. 4 II. 5 RECOMMENDATION 6 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a 7 preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order be DENIED. 8 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after 10 being served with this Findings and Recommendation, the parties may file written objections with the 11 Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 12 Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 13 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) 14 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: 18 April 3, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 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?