Hernandez v. Kokor et al

Filing 11

ORDER denying 4 Motion for TRO signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/20/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARINO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
WINIFRED M. KOKOR, et al.,

15

1:16-cv-00716-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(ECF No. 4)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Marino Antonio Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights complaint. (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff’s complaint is awaiting screening.

21

Also on May 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order

22

prohibiting Defendant medical staff personnel at the California Substance Abuse

23

Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, California, from “denying proper and effective

24

medical care and from harassing in any ways (sic) Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff also

25

seeks a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to restore Plaintiff’s morphine pain

26

medication.

27

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

28

a preliminary injunction hearing may be held; its provisional remedial nature is designed
1

1

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

2

Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). Under Federal Rule of Civil

3

Procedure 65, a temporary restraining order may be granted only if “specific facts in an

4

affidavit or verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or

5

damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.”

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).

7

The analysis for a temporary restraining order is substantially identical to that for a

8

preliminary injunction, Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc.,

9

240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001), and “[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary

10

remedy never awarded as of right,” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,

11

555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must

12

establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable

13

harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor,

14

and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). Alternatively,

15

a preliminary injunction may issue where the plaintiff demonstrates the existence of

16

serious questions going to the merits and the hardship balance tips sharply toward the

17

plaintiff, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met. Alliance for the

18

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

19

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

20

probability of success on the merits is low. See Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of

21

Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (even if the balance of hardships tips

22

decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that

23

there is a fair chance of success on the merits).

24

An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is

25

entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). In addition, in cases

26

brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary injunction must

27

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

28

requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the
2

1

harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

2

Finally, a Plaintiff must establish that he has standing to seek preliminary

3

injunctive relief. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

4

Plaintiff “must show that he is under threat of suffering an ‘injury in fact’ that is concrete

5

and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or

6

hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and it

7

must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury.”

8

Summers, 555 U.S. at 493 (citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969.

9

Here, Plaintiff has failed to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits since at

10

this stage of the proceedings the Court has not screened his complaint or determined

11

that he states a cognizable claim.

12

Plaintiff does suggest that he is under threat of suffering an “injury in fact,” in that

13

he states he continues to experience severe pain. However, there is nothing to suggest

14

such harm is irreparable. In any event, absent a showing as to the other factors, this

15

threat, standing alone, is insufficient to warrant injunctive relief. See Johnson v. Cal.

16

State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (even if the balance of

17

hardships tips decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible

18

minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits).

19

Plaintiff does not address the third or fourth elements, i.e., the balancing of

20

equities and public interest concerns. First, absent a cognizable claim, there is nothing to

21

tip the balance of equities in Plaintiff’s favor. Second, while the public has an interest in

22

providing prisoners with constitutionally adequate medical care, the record before the

23

Court does not justify the Court substituting its judgment in these matters for that of the

24

prison medical staff.

25

In sum, Plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits,

26

likelihood of irreparable harm, the balance of equities in his favor, or that an injunction is

27

in the public interest. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Local Rule 231; Winter, 555 U.S. at 24.

28

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
3

1

injunction, filed on May 23, 2016, is HEREBY DENIED.

2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 20, 2016

/s/

5

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Michael J. Seng

4