Jackson v. Davis, et al.

Filing 45

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Deny Plaintiff's 20 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/8/18. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE JACKSON,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
R. DAVIS, et al.,

15

CASE No. 1:16-cv-0148 DAD MJS (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
(Doc. 20)

Defendants.

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

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

18

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 12, 2016, Plaintiff’s Second Amended

19

Complaint (“SAC”) was screened and found to state an Eighth Amendment medical indifference

20

claim against Defendant Physician’s Assistant (“PA”) Johnson. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff was directed

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

to file either a Third Amended Complaint or a notice of his willingness to proceed on the SAC as
screened.
Plaintiff has since a notice of his willingness to proceed on the Second Amended
Complaint as screened. (Doc. 18.) Accordingly, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations
on January 19, 2017, recommending service on PA Johnson and the dismissal of all other claims
and Defendants. (Doc. 19.) These Findings and Recommendations remain pending.
Pending now is Plaintiff’s January 23, 2017, motion for temporary restraining order

28
1

1

seeking to prevent his transfer to another institution in retaliation for the filing of this action.

2

I.

Plaintiff’s Allegations

3

In the SAC, Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from Raynaud’s Disease. In 2010, before his

4

arrival at Valley State Prison (“VSP”) in Chowchilla, California, Plaintiff received permanent

5

chronos from medical specialists for single-cell accommodations and “No exposure to cold, drafts

6

of air, or fans.”

7

On October 24, 2014, VSP PA Johnson rescinded Plaintiff’s single-cell chrono, an act that

8

was beyond her authority. Also on that date, PA Johnson designated Plaintiff “High-Risk Medical

9

Status,” a classification that would have caused Plaintiff to be transferred to Chino State Prison,

10

an institution with an open housing plan that would have exacerbated Plaintiff’s medical

11

condition. On October 30, 2014, the transfer recommendation was denied.

12

II.

Legal Standards

13

The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo before a

14

preliminary injunction hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed merely to

15

prevent irreparable loss of rights prior to judgment. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software,

16

Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, a temporary

17

restraining order may be granted only if “specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint

18

clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant

19

before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).

20

The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for a

21

preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d

22

832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy,

23

never awarded as of right. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (citations omitted). A

24

plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits,

25

that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of

26

equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res.

27

Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A preliminary injunction may issue where the plaintiff

28

demonstrates the existence of serious questions going to the merits and the hardship balance tips
2

1

sharply toward the plaintiff, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met.

2

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). Under either

3

formulation of the principles, preliminary injunctive relief should be denied if the probability of

4

success on the merits is low. See Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430

5

(9th Cir. 1995) (even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party, it

6

must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits).

7

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary

8

injunction must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court

9

finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.

10

18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

11

III.

Analysis

12

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendant PA Johnson improperly rescinded a medical

13

chrono in excess of her authority. In the pending motion for temporary restraining order, Plaintiff

14

asserts new allegations, namely, that the defendant manipulated Plaintiff’s medical records by

15

changing specific words that now render him subject to a potential transfer to another institution.

16

Such a transfer would exacerbate Plaintiff’s medical condition.

17

On review, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of success

18

on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm, a balance of equities in his favor, or that an

19

injunction is in the public interest.

20

Moreover, the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to the parties before it in this action and to

21

Plaintiff’s claim arising from PA Johnson’s alleged improper revocation of a medical chrono. See

22

e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998) (“[The] triad of injury in

23

fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s case-or-controversy

24

requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its

25

existence.”) (citation omitted); American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d

26

1046, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[F]ederal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or

27

controversies.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

28
3

1

At this point, the defendant has not yet been served with the complaint, and the Court

2

therefore does not have jurisdiction to order the defendant or any other individual to take any

3

action. Even once defendant appears in this action, however, Plaintiff’s request to prohibit a

4

transfer is not the subject matter of this action, and Plaintiff would not be entitled to any such

5

relief.

6

IV.

7
8

Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s January 23, 2017, motion for

temporary restraining order (Doc. 20) be DENIED.

9

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

10

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days

11

after being served with the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections

12

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

13

and Recommendation.” A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a response

14

within 14 days after being served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are advised

15

that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on

16

appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923

17

F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 8, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4