Walker v. Mohadjer et al

Filing 20

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 08/05/13 recommending that plaintiff's motions for immediate injunctive relief 13 and 17 be denied. Motions 13 and 17 referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY E. WALKER,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:13-cv-1193 WBS AC P

Plaintiff,
v.
MOHADJER, Clinical Psychologist, et al.,
Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

17
18

On July 22, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order/preliminary

19

injunction, claiming that he was being subjected to acts of retaliation in the form of serious rules

20

violations reports for the filing of this lawsuit. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff provided some evidence

21

that he suffers from anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder and indicated he had engaged in

22

suicide attempts in the past. He appeared to be alleging that he is currently in psychiatric crisis

23

and is not being properly monitored for suicidal ideation.

24

By order filed on July 24, 2013 (ECF No. 14), the undersigned found plaintiff’s amended

25

complaint to state a cognizable claim against defendant Mohadjer for inadequate medical care in

26

violation of the Eighth Amendment. By separate order (ECF No. 15), also filed on July 24, 2013,

27

the court directed the defendant to respond within ten (10) days to plaintiff’s request for

28
1

1

immediate injunctive relief. The Attorney General and the defendant were directed to contact the

2

appropriate medical/mental health authorities at CMF-Vacaville to ensure their awareness of

3

plaintiff’s potential suicide risk. By special appearance, the Attorney General’s office has

4

provided a timely response with respect to plaintiff’s current status. In the interim, plaintiff filed

5

another putative motion for a TRO. ECF No. 17. Because the second motion relies on the same

6

circumstances and allegations as the first, the court considers them together. After careful review,

7

the court recommends denial of plaintiff’s motions for immediate injunctive relief.

8

Motions

9

Plaintiff makes a number of claims in these two motions, including that he is being

10

subjected to retaliatory disciplinary charges which result in administrative segregation (“ad seg”)

11

placement, and that he is not being properly monitored as a suicide risk. Plaintiff seeks either to

12

have his ad seg placement rescinded or to have his transfer out of prison to a state hospital

13

expedited. Plaintiff alleges that only treatment at Patton or Atascadero State Hospital is adequate

14

to address the post-traumatic stress disorder he suffers as a result of sexual abuse. This allegation

15

also forms the basis of plaintiff’s underlying amended complaint.

16

Standards Governing Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order

17

The purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo pending

18

a fuller hearing. The cases contain limited discussion of the standards for issuing a temporary

19

restraining order due to the fact that very few such orders can be appealed prior to the hearing on

20

a preliminary injunction. It is apparent, however, that requests for temporary restraining orders

21

which are not ex parte and without notice are governed by the same general standards that govern

22

the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434

23

U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (Rehnquist, J.); Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist.

24

Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting); Century Time Ltd. v.

25

Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). In many cases the emphasis of the court

26

is directed to irreparable harm and the balance of hardships because the merits of a controversy

27

are often difficult to ascertain and adjudicate on short notice.

28

////
2

1

Standards Governing Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction

2

“A preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy’ . . . never awarded as

3

of right.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689 90 (2008) (internal citations omitted). “A plaintiff

4

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

5

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

6

tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Assn, Inc. v. City

7

of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def.

8

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). A preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff

9

demonstrates . . . “serious questions going to the merits and a hardship balance [] tips sharply

10

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

11

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

12
13

The Ninth Circuit has reiterated that under either formulation of the principles, if the
probability of success on the merits is low, preliminary injunctive relief should be denied:

14

Martin explicitly teaches that “[u]nder this last part of the
alternative test, even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in
favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible
minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits.”

15
16
17

Johnson v. California State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting

18

Martin v. International Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984)).

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

23

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

24

In opposition to the motion at ECF No 13, Dr. Kumar, CDCR1 staff psychiatrist at Kern

25

Valley State Prison (KVSP) Correctional Treatment Center (CTC), declares that plaintiff, who is

26

currently confined at CTC in a crisis bed, does not qualify for hospitalization. Declaration of Dr.

27
28

1

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
3

1

Kumar (ECF No. 19-1) at ¶¶ 2-3. No contrary medical opinion is before the court.

2

Accordingly, the present record does not support a finding that plaintiff is likely to prevail on the

3

merits of his claim regarding psychiatric care.

4

Likelihood of Irreparable Harm

5

According to Dr. Kumar, plaintiff is on suicide watch consisting of one-on-one direct

6

observation from the front of his cell by nursing staff. ECF No. 19-1 at ¶ 2. It is the doctor’s

7

opinion that plaintiff’s threat to cut himself if he is taken off the one-on-one monitoring is for

8

“secondary gain” in light of an alleged history of manipulative behavior by plaintiff. Id.

9

Nevertheless, the doctor informs the court that plaintiff will continue to be treated as suicidal due

10

to that part of plaintiff’s history which includes behavior that is self-injurious. Id. In addition,

11

plaintiff has been “started on Zoloft for its anti-depressant and anti-anxiety effects.” Dr. Kumar

12

emphasizes that he/she is “taking a cautious approach” notwithstanding what the doctor terms

13

plaintiff’s “long history of attention seeking behavior.” Id. at ¶ 3. Dr. Kumar also states that

14

plaintiff’s treatment plan calls for quickly stabilizing plaintiff and returning him to the California

15

Medical Facility. ECF No. 19-1 at ¶ 3. In light of the evidence that plaintiff is being closely

16

monitored and that a treatment plan is presently in place, the court cannot conclude that that

17

plaintiff is likely to be subjected to irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief.

18

Balance of the Equities

19

Plaintiff seeks transfer to a state hospital both for psychiatric treatment and as a remedy

20

for his allegedly improper and retaliatory ad seg placement. On screening, the court did not find

21

that the complaint states a claim of retaliation. See ECF No. 14. Moreover, the federal courts are

22

generally loath to interfere with internal discipline in federal or state prisons. Winsby v. Walsh,

23

321 F. Supp. 523, 526 (C.D. Cal. 1971). In general, prison officials’ housing and classification

24

decisions do not implicate a prisoner’s constitutional rights. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408

25

U.S. 564, 569 (1972). Nor does the Constitution guarantee a prisoner placement in a particular

26

prison or protect an inmate against being transferred from one institution to another. Meachum v.

27

Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-225 (1976).

28

The challenge . . . in prison condition cases, is to uphold the
4

1

Constitution in such a manner that respects the state’s unique
interest in managing its prison population. It is a challenge that
requires us to draw constitutional lines when necessary, yet
minimize
any
intrusion
into
state
affairs.

2
3
4

Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146, 1279 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
Regarding mental health treatment, the balance of the equities does not favor judicial

5
6

intervention at this stage of the proceedings. Plaintiff is being monitored for suicide risk and is

7

receiving mental health services. On the present record, it cannot be concluded that these

8

measures are inadequate. There is no basis for this court to override the medical judgments of

9

prison psychiatric staff.

10

Public Interest

11

No identifiable public interest would be served by the court’s interference with plaintiff’s

12

treatment or housing.

13

Conclusion

14

For all the reasons set forth above, plaintiff has not established his entitlement to

15

immediate injunctive relief.
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motions for immediate injunctive

16
17

relief (ECF Nos. 13 and 17) be denied.

18

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

19

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

20

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

21

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

22

“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

23

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are

24

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////
5

1

District Courts order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991).

2

DATED: August 5, 2013

3
4

___________________________________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

AC:009
walk1193.pi

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6