Kamakeeaina v. City & County of Honolulu et al

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION re 34 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 10/3/12. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Buddy Kamakeeiana shall be served by first class mail at the address of record on October 4, 2012.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
BUDDY KAMAKEEIANA,
#A0235486,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,
et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 1:11-cv-00770 SOM/RLP
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive
Relief, ECF #34-1.

Plaintiff seeks reinstatement of medical and

psychological care after his transfer from the Federal Detention
Center-Honolulu (“FDC”) to the state prison system.

Plaintiff

fails to show cause why injunctive relief is appropriate, and his
Motion is DENIED.
I.

BACKGROUND

On September 4, 2012, Plaintiff moved for injunctive
relief requiring DPS to “continue Plaintiff’s mental health
treatment including psychotropic medications and therapy
sessions[.]”

Mot. for Injunctive Relief, ECF #34-1, PageID #545.

Plaintiff alleged that DPS prison officials had failed to provide
him with any “mental health treatment, psychotropic medications,
and/or psychotherapy sessions[,]” since his transfer from the
FDC, first to the Oahu Community Correctional Center (“OCCC”),
then to the Halawa Correctional Facility (“HCF”) on August 29,

2012.

Id.

In a later document, Plaintiff admitted, however,

that he had been receiving medical and/or psychological treatment
at HCF since on or about September 5, 2012.

Pl. Decl., ECF

#40-1.
On September 13, 2012, the court issued an Order to
Show Cause (“OSC”) directing Plaintiff to explain why his Motion
should not be summarily dismissed as moot.

ECF #41.

In his

September 27, 2012, Declaration in response to the OSC, Plaintiff
reiterates that he was transferred from the FDC to OCCC on August
21, 2012, then to HCF on August 29, 2012.
PageID #601.

Pl. Decl., ECF #45-1

On August 30, 2012, Plaintiff says he received a

“post admission mental health assessment and evaluation” at the
HCF Medical Unit.

Plaintiff complains that the evaluation form

shows a “revision date of ‘01/06,’” suggesting that the form is
therefore outdated.

Plaintiff spoke with a Dr. Visner at the HCF

Medical Unit, explained his past psychological history, and
detailed the medicines he was receiving while he was incarcerated
at the FDC and before.

Id. PageID #602.

Plaintiff states that,

on or about September 5, 2012, he received psychotropic
medication, including 1000 mg. of Depakote and 50 mg. of
Trazodone, per day.

Plaintiff complains that this is less than

the amount he was receiving at the FDC.

Plaintiff also complains

that he has not yet begun psychotherapy sessions at HCF, although
it is unclear when he was next scheduled for such therapy at the

2

FDC, which he admits he received only quarterly.

See id., PageID

#601.
II. DISCUSSION
A “preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and
drastic remedy never awarded as of right.”

Winter v. Natural

Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation
omitted).

A “plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must

establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that
an injunction is in the public interest.”

Id. at 20; accord

Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009).
“That is, ‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a
balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can
support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the
plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable
injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.”
Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135-36
(9th Cir. 2011) (citing Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of
L.A., 340 F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2003)).

In cases brought by

prisoners involving conditions of confinement, injunctive relief
“must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to
correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and

3

be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.”

18

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
Plaintiff admits that he has been evaluated, examined
by a physician, and is being treated for his mental health issues
at HCF.

He disagrees with the reduction of dosage and, perhaps,

the substitution of one medicine with another.

He also complains

that the evaluation intake form was last revised in 2006.
Plaintiff’s disagreement with the treatment plan chosen by Dr.
Visner does not give rise to a § 1983 claim, much less provide a
basis for injunctive relief.

See Franklin v. State of Or., State

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

Plaintiff

fails to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits or
suffer irreparable harm, or that the balance of equities tips in
his favor and an injunction is in the public interest.
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 3, 2012.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Kamakeeaina v. City and County, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00770 SOM-RLP; ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; G:\docs\prose attys\TROs\2012\Kamakeeaina 11-770
som (dny inj. rlf for meds & trtmt).wpd

4