Quiroga v. Medical Service Doctor et al
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's 33 Motion for Injunctive Relief, filed on March 3, 2017 33 , be DENIED ; referred to Judge O'Neill,signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 05/31/2017. Objections to F&R due : 21-Day Deadline(Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MONICO J. QUIROGA, III,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01871-LJO-JLT (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
On March 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion which is construed as a motion for preliminary
injunctive relief since it seeks an order directing medical personnel to provide him pain
medication -- 150 mg Tramadol and 1200 mg Gabapentin. (Doc. 33.)
As a threshold matter, Plaintiff must establish that he has standing to seek preliminary
injunctive relief. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493-94 (2009); Mayfield v.
United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff “must show that he is under threat of
suffering an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the
defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the
injury.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at
The medical care claims which Plaintiff proceeds on in this action arise from events that
occurred at Kern County Lerdo Max-Med Security Facility (Lerdo Max-Med) in Bakersfield,
California. However, Plaintiff was subsequently transferred and is currently housed at High
Desert State Prison. Plaintiff thus lacks standing in this action to seek relief directed at
remedying his current conditions of confinement at HDSP. Further, to the extent that his motion
seeks relief to remedy his conditions of confinement for the time he was at Lerdo Max-Med, it
was rendered moot on his transfer to HDSP. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir.
1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991). Thus, Plaintiff=s motion for a
preliminary injunction should be denied.1
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff=s motion for injunctive relief, filed
on March 3, 2017 (Doc. 33), be DENIED.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned “Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the
specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,
839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 31, 2017
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff=s motion also fails to make the requisite showing, supported by admissible evidence, to obtain a
preliminary injunction. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-4, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376
(2008). However, it is unnecessary to reach the merits of Plaintiff=s motions in light of the fact that Plaintiff lacks
standing on this issue.
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?