Hoyt v. Kernan

Filing 13

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 5/17/2018. (mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHNAE HOYT,

Case No.: 3:18-cv-0716-H-BLM
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

21

SCOTT KERNAN, in his official capacity
as Secretary of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation;
Lieutenant JASON ALTSCHULER;
COUNSELOR DOE #1;
PSYCHOLOGIST DOE #1;
PSYCHIATRIST DOE #1; MENTAL
HEALTH PERSONNEL DOES #1-10;
Correctional Officer CESAR SIGALA;
and the INSTITUTION
CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE, in
their official capacities,

22

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

v.

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20

[Doc. No. 9]

23
24

On May 16, 2018, Plaintiff Johnae Hoyt (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate currently housed

25

at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) 1 in Soledad, California, and represented by

26

counsel, filed an amended complaint in this matter. (Doc. No. 9.) Attached to that pleading

27
28

1

See https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/Results.aspx (website last visited Mar. 16, 2018)
1
3:18-cv-0716-H-BLM

1

was a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. (See Doc. No.

2

9-2.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the motion without prejudice.

3

BACKGROUND

4

Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order “undoing” his transfer to SVSP pending

5

his administration appeal of certain disciplinary action. (Doc. No. 9-2.) Plaintiff alleges

6

that, as an inmate at Richard J. Donovan State Prison (“RJDSP”) in San Diego, California,

7

he was found guilty of having a weapon in his cell. (Doc. No. 9 ¶ 8.) Plaintiff alleges that

8

Defendant correctional officer Cesar Sigala (“Defendant Sigala”) planted the weapon in

9

Plaintiff’s cell in retaliation for an excessive force complaint Plaintiff made against another

10

correctional officer.

11

Altschuler (“Defendant Altschuler”) denied Plaintiff’s requests to call witnesses to the

12

disciplinary hearing on the weapon charge. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 16.) Moreover, Plaintiff disputes

13

his current level of medical treatment at SVSP.

(Id. ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Lieutenant

14

On April 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against California Department of

15

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Secretary Scott Kernan in his official capacity

16

(“Defendant Kernan”). (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in

17

forma pauperis, which the Court denied. (Doc. Nos. 1, 6.) Performing sua sponte

18

screening, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. No. 6.) The Court also denied Plaintiff’s motion

20

for injunctive relief, concluding that Plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of success on the

21

merits and that the Court lacked jurisdiction over Defendant Kernan, who had no actual

22

notice of Plaintiff’s complaint or the motion for injunctive relief. (Id. at 6-7.)

23

On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that Defendant

24

Sigala violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment right by planting a gun in his cell in retaliation

25

for Plaintiff’s excessive force complaint, and that Defendant Altschuler violated Plaintiff’s

26

due process right by denying Plaintiff’s request to call witnesses to the prison disciplinary

27

hearing. (Doc. No. 9 ¶¶ 25-26.) Defendant Kernan remains a named defendant who,

28

Plaintiff alleges, has authority to approve or deny a prisoner’s transfer. (See id. ¶ 2.)
2
3:18-cv-0716-H-BLM

1

Attached to the complaint is a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary

2

injunction. (Doc. No. 9-2.) In the motion, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief ordering that his

3

transfer to SVSP “be undone” until prison officials act on his administrative appeal. (Id.

4

at 2.)

5

DISCUSSION

6

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

7

for issuing a preliminary injunction.” Lockheed Missile & Space Co. v. Hughes Aircraft

8

Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary

9

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

10

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

11

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726,

12

2736-37 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).

13

Based on the present record, including Plaintiff’s factual allegations, declaration,

14

and arguments, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has made an insufficient showing that the

15

requested injunctive relief is warranted at this time.

16

possessing a weapon in his cell at RJDSP and was subsequently transferred to a maximum

17

security prison. (Doc. No. 9-2 at 3.) “It is well settled that the decision where to house

18

inmates is at the core of prison administrators’ expertise.” McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24,

19

39 (2002); see also Jones v. Donovan, No. 3:17-CV-2454, 2018 WL 1035214, at *3 (S.D.

20

Cal. Feb. 23, 2018) (“Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to be housed in the

21

institution of his choice.” (citing Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983))).

22

Moreover, the Court has considered Plaintiff’s declaration regarding his medical treatment

23

at SVSP. (Doc. No. 9-3.) Given the amended complaint’s addition of various DOE

24

medical personnel defendants, (Doc. No. 9), it is clear that Plaintiff has indeed been seeing

25

medical personnel at SVSP but disagrees with the treatment he has received. At most,

26

Plaintiff complains that he is not receiving rehabilitation, but he has not shown that this

27

constitutes irreparable harm. And although Plaintiff has not alleged an Eighth Amendment

28

deliberate indifference claim regarding his medical treatment at SVSP, it bears noting that

Plaintiff was found guilty of

3
3:18-cv-0716-H-BLM

1

“[a] difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities

2

regarding treatment does not give rise to a § 1983 claim.” Franklin v. State of Or., State

3

Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

4

It remains to be seen whether this matter should proceed before the Court,

5

considering that Plaintiff is housed outside the Southern District at SVSP in Soledad,

6

California. At any rate, Plaintiff is represented by counsel, who can develop the record

7

regarding the issues raised in the amended complaint. Defendants, for their part, have not

8

yet been served with the amended complaint and will be free to move for a transfer of

9

venue, if appropriate.

10

CONCLUSION

11

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

12

Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 9.)

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 17, 2018
MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
3:18-cv-0716-H-BLM