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)

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