Turnquist v. Baker et al
ORDER ADOPTING 31 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full; denying 6 , 10 Motions for injunctive relief. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 3/21/2017. Mailed to Turnquist. (TAG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 01
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
':. J. 2017
Clerk, U.S. District Court
District of Montana
BRETT A. TURNQUIST,
CANDICE BAKER, et al.,
United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered his Findings and
Recommendations in this matter on February 17, 2017, recommending denial of
Plaintiff Brett A. Turnquist's ("Turnquist") requests for intervention (Docs. 6,10),
which were liberally construed as motions for injunctive relief. Turnquist filed
objections and is therefore entitled to de novo review of those findings and
recommendations to which he specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(C).
This Court reviews for clear error those findings and recommendations to which
no party objects. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc.,
656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
"Clear error exists if the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir.
Upon de novo review of the "objections," the Court finds that Turnquist
fails to allege any legal error with Judge Johnston's findings and, instead,
proceeds to list various medical issues that he alleges are not being properly
treated. Despite his allegations, Turnquist fails to provide any evidence that
Defendants have shown a deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
Specifically, although Turnquist has alleged facts that may establish that he has
serious medical needs, he has failed to allege facts that show that prison officials
have disregarded "an excessive risk to [his] health and safety." Toguchi v. Chung,
391F.3d1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). In fact, as noted by Judge
Johnston, Defendants have submitted documentation that Turnquist has been seen
by prison medical staff and medical providers outside the prison more than 20
times between August 2015 and September 2016. (See Doc. 17.) Consequently,
the Court agrees with Judge Johnston that Turnquist has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits of his claims and fails to carry his burden in obtaining
injunctive relief. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,
20 (2008) (stating that "[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must
establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits" of his claim).
Lastly, the Court notes that Turnquist's objections also argue that his
"health and safety were denied" by prison officials after his request to move away
from another inmate was rejected and he was subsequently assaulted. (Doc. 33 at
2.) Liberally construed, this could raise an argument that prison officials failed to
protect him from other inmates. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994)
(discussing the duty of prison officials "to protect prisoners from violence at the
hands of other prisoners").
Notwithstanding this argument, the Court finds that Turnquist failed to raise
it before Judge Johnston. "[A]llowing parties to litigate fully their case before the
magistrate and, if unsuccessful, to change their strategy and present a different
theory to the district court would frustrate the purpose of the Magistrates Act."
Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 955 F. Supp. 2d 1191, 1194 (D. Mont. 2013),
affd, 767 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). This is because "the
Magistrates Act was [not] intended to give litigants an opportunity to run one
version of their case past the magistrate, then another past the district court." Id.
As a result, because Turnquist failed to present this argument in the underlying
motions, the Court declines to address it now. Tumquist's objections are
Accordingly, the Court reviews the remainder Judge Johnston's Findings
and Recommendations for clear error and, finding none,
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 31) are
ADOPTED IN FULL;
(2) Turnquist's "Request for Immediate Court Intervention because of
Defendant Kohut, et al., Defendants herein, Retaliation for Plaintiff seeking
Access to Court" (Doc. 6) as construed as a motion for injunctive relief is
(3) Tumquist's "Request for Emergency Court Intervention" (Doc. 10)
as construed as a request for injunctive relief is DENIED.
21 $~ay of March, 201 .
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?