(PC) Driver v. Kern County Superior Court et al

Filing 94

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/17/21 ORDERING that defendants shall file a supplemental opposition to plaintiff's motions to be taken off anti-psychotic medication within 21 days of the date of this order.(Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BILLY DRIVER, JR.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

18

ORDER

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et
al.,
Defendants.

16
17

No. 2: 20-cv-1665 JAM KJN P

Introduction
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant

19

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s September 13, 2021, and October

20

15, 2021, motions to be taken off anti-psychotic medication. (ECF Nos. 77, 83.) The

21

undersigned construes these motions as motions for injunctive relief. On September 23, 2021,

22

and October 29, 2021, defendants filed oppositions to these motions. (ECF Nos. 80, 86.)

23

For the reasons stated herein, defendants are ordered to file a supplemental opposition to

24

plaintiff’s motions to be taken off anti-psychotic medication.

25

Background

26

This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint against defendants Bansal, Dr.

27

Rauf and May. (ECF No. 13.) Defendant Bansal is employed at the California Medical Facility

28

(“CMF”). Defendants Dr. Rauf and May are employed at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”).
1

1

(ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff alleges that these defendants violated the Eighth Amendment when they

2

denied plaintiff’s request to discontinue his prescription for the anti-psychotic medication Invega

3

after plaintiff told defendants that he was not psychotic and that the medication caused harmful

4

side effects including chest pain, borderline diabetes, heart palpitations and gynecomastia

5

(enlargement of breast tissue). (ECF No. 13 at 3.)

6

Discussion

7

When plaintiff filed his first pending motion on September 13, 2021, he was housed at the

8

California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”). On October 12, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of

9

change of address indicating that he is now housed at KVSP, where two defendants are located.

10

(ECF No. 82.) Therefore, defendants are capable of responding to the pending motions.

11

In the pending motions, plaintiff requests that he be taken off all anti-psychotic drugs. As

12

discussed above, in the amended complaint, plaintiff challenges the prescription for Invega rather

13

than all anti-psychotic drugs. “[T]here must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the

14

motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying claim.” Pacific Radiation

15

Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015).

16

The side effects plaintiff complains of in the amended complaint are allegedly caused by

17

Invega. For this reason, the undersigned does not find that plaintiff’s request to be taken of all

18

anti-psychotic medication is sufficiently related to his claim challenging the side effects of

19

Invega. Accordingly, the undersigned construes the pending motions as requests to be taken off

20

Invega only.

21

In the opposition filed September 23, 2021, defendants argue, in part, that the court should

22

deny plaintiff’s motion because it is not supported by competent evidence. (ECF No. 80 at 5.)

23

Defendants argue that plaintiff is not qualified to opine regarding the cause of his alleged

24

symptoms. (Id.) The undersigned is not persuaded by this argument at this time.

25

Defendants also argue that the instant action is not the proper forum to raise plaintiff’s

26

claims because records show an administrative law judge authorized involuntary medication in

27

April 2020 and April 2021. (Id.) The undersigned has reviewed the April 2020 and April 2021

28

orders authorizing involuntary administration of psychiatric medication to plaintiff, previously
2

1

submitted by defendants. (ECF No. 35.) Neither of these orders address the specific psychiatric

2

medication defendants were authorized to administer to plaintiff.

3

Because plaintiff states a potentially colorable Eighth Amendment claim based on the side

4

effects he allegedly suffers as a result of taking Invega, defendants are ordered to file a

5

supplemental opposition to plaintiff’s motions to be taken off Invega. Cf. Townsend v. Hemela,

6

2020 WL 1026891, at *2 (E.D. Cal. March 3, 2020) (forcibly medicated civil detainee raises

7

potentially colorable Fourteenth Amendment claim challenging exact drugs and dosages of drugs

8

administered to him, as well as inattentiveness to the side effects he is suffering as a result of the

9

forced medication.).
In the supplemental opposition, defendants shall address whether plaintiff is currently

10
11

taking Invega. If plaintiff is currently taking Invega, defendants shall address plaintiff’s claims

12

that he suffers side effects caused by Invega including borderline diabetes, chest pain, heart

13

palpitations and gynecomastia. Defendants shall address whether Invega can cause such side

14

effects, and the severity of these side effects, if they are occurring. Defendants shall address, if

15

appropriate, whether steps have been taken to alleviate the alleged side effects. Defendants shall

16

address, if appropriate, whether alternative psychiatric medications may be prescribed in place of

17

Invega. 1

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants shall file a supplemental

19

opposition to plaintiff’s motions to be taken off anti-psychotic medication within twenty-one days

20

of the date of this order.

21

Dated: November 17, 2021

22
23
24
25

Dr1665.pi

26

1

27
28

On November 9, 2021, plaintiff filed a pleading suggesting that Dr. Carrillo recently stopped
plaintiff’s psychiatric medication because of plaintiff’s heart condition. (ECF No. 91.) In that
case, the pending motions may be moot. However, because this matter is not clear, defendants
are ordered to file the supplemental opposition discussed in this order.
3