Washington v. California Department of Corrections
Filing
8
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 9/22/16 RECOMMENDING that 7 Motion be denied. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILLIAM NATHANIEL WASHINGTON,
12
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-2302-MCE-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
vs.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
15
Defendant.
16
17
/
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 7).
19
Plaintiff is requesting the court order the California Department of Corrections to provide
20
plaintiff immediate medial treatment for his fractured finger.
21
The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a
22
temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the
23
moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See
24
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res.
25
Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser
26
standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer
1
1
controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,
2
1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is
3
likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an
4
injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public
5
interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). In addition, the court
6
is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See
7
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).
8
In this case, plaintiff has requested the court order CDCR to provide treatment.
9
However, as the undersigned outlined in the screening order, plaintiff cannot maintain an action
10
against CDCR. Essentially, this is equivalent of asking the court to issue an order against a non-
11
party, which the court is unable to do.
12
As to the likelihood of success on the merits of plaintiff’s claims, the undersigned
13
has found plaintiff’s complaint deficient, and has ordered him to file an amended complaint
14
which sufficiently states a claim. As such, at this time there does not appear to be a high
15
likelihood of success on the merits. Similarly, as to the irreparable injury, plaintiff has not
16
provided the court with enough information to determine whether there would be irreparable
17
injury. A fractured finger may or may not require extensive treatment. Without more
18
information, the court cannot determine the extent of the damage, and whether there would be
19
irreparable injury. As to the balance of hardships, plaintiff offers no reason why the balance
20
would tip in his favor. Requiring specific treatment could be a significant hardship on the prison,
21
especially if the specific treatment plaintiff is requesting is not medically necessary. Finally, the
22
undersigned sees no public interest in requiring plaintiff be provided specific medical treatment
23
in this situation, where it is unclear from the record whether such treatment is medically
24
necessary.
25
///
26
///
2
1
2
3
Accordingly, plaintiff fails to make the required showing for a temporary
restraining order at this time. His motion for such should be denied.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds plaintiff fails to make the required
4
showing for a temporary restraining order and recommends that his motion (Doc. 7) be denied.
5
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
6
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
7
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
8
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
9
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
10
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
11
12
13
14
DATED: September 22, 2016
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?