Israel v. Nevens et al

Filing 16

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Defendant's 10 Motion to Seal exhibits B, C, D, E,F, and G of Defendant's opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction is Granted. This case is currently in a 90-day stay. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/18/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

HUGO C. ISRAEL also known as HUGO
ISRAEL CAHUEC,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DWIGHT NEVEN et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
____________________________________ )
I.

2:14-cv-1384-GMN-VCF
ORDER

DISCUSSION

11

On August 29, 2014, this Court issued a screening order permitting Counts I, II, and III,

12

alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, to proceed against Defendant Nevens

13

and stayed the case for 90 days to give the parties an opportunity to settle their dispute. (ECF

14

No. 6 at 4-5, 7-8). This Court also ordered Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion

15

for preliminary injunction. (Id. at 8). Defendants have filed a response and a motion to seal

16

confidential medical records.1 (ECF No. 10, 11).

17

In the preliminary injunction motion, Plaintiff asserts that he has suffered from a serious

18

colon, stomach, and chest problem and has lost his vision for more than two years. (ECF No.

19

4 at 1). Plaintiff argues that the warden and the doctors have failed to order the proper medical

20

examinations including an MRI and blood tests, which may only be procured by outside

21

hospitals, like the University Medical Center. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff asserts that, over the past two

22

years, the doctors have mis-diagnosed him several times including the latest diagnoses which

23

stated, “maybe you have prostate cancer.” (Id. at 3). Plaintiff contends that he will suffer

24

irreparable injury because his health is deteriorating. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff seeks an injunction

25

ordering Defendants to have him examined by physicians who specialize in treatment of the

26
27
28

1

The Court grants Defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 10) exhibits B, C, D, E, F, and G in its
opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction because those exhibits contain Plaintiff’s confidential medical
records. Defendants state that they have sent a copy of the exhibits to the High Desert State Prison’s warden’s
office where Plaintiff will be able to view the documents at his request via kite. (ECF No. 10 at 2). Defendants
state that Plaintiff’s kite must reference this litigation by name and case number in order to view those exhibits.
(Id. at 2 n.1).

1

colon and its diseases. (Id. at 5).

2

In response, Defendants provide exhibits that demonstrate that between May 29, 2012

3

through June 17, 2014, the prison medical staff have conducted nine physical examinations on

4

Plaintiff and have ordered or performed three x-rays, an anoscopy exam, a digital rectal exam,

5

a complete blood panel, and a prostate-specific blood test on Plaintiff. (ECF No. 11 at 5-7).

6

These exams revealed that Plaintiff has internal hemorrhoids which the prison medical staff have

7

been treating with hydrocortisone suppositories, fiber tablets, Tylenol, and Ibuprofin. (Id. at 5-

8

6). The prison medical staff continue to run different tests on Plaintiff when he complains of

9

colon pain. (Id. at 6-7). These tests continue to show that Plaintiff has internal hemorrhoids.

10

(Id. at 7).

With respect to Plaintiff’s vision, prison officials have filled the eye glass

11

prescriptions ordered by the prison eye doctor. (Id.). The prison eye doctor has never noted any

12

medical need requiring further attention. (Id.). With respect to chest pain, Plaintiff’s doctor

13

prior to incarceration had conducted a full cardiac work up of Plaintiff and had concluded that

14

Plaintiff’s chest symptoms were caused by anxiety. (Id. at 8). Prison medical staff have

15

conducted x-rays, EKGs, an exercise stress test, and an echocardiogram on Plaintiff and have

16

also concluded that Plaintiff’s chest pain is caused by anxiety. (Id.).

17

Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy, never

18

awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A

19

plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits,

20

that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance

21

of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking

22

Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555

23

U.S. at 20). Furthermore, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), preliminary

24

injunctive relief must be “narrowly drawn,” must “extend no further than necessary to correct

25

the harm,” and must be “the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. §

26

3626(a)(2).

27

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment and

28

“embodies ‘broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and
2

1

decency.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976). A prison official violates the Eighth

2

Amendment when he acts with “deliberate indifference” to the serious medical needs of an

3

inmate. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). “To establish an Eighth Amendment

4

violation, a plaintiff must satisfy both an objective standard—that the deprivation was serious

5

enough to constitute cruel and unusual punishment—and a subjective standard—deliberate

6

indifference.” Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012).

7

To establish the first prong, “the plaintiff must show a serious medical need by

8

demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant injury

9

or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.

10

2006) (internal quotations omitted). To satisfy the deliberate indifference prong, a plaintiff must

11

show “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and

12

(b) harm caused by the indifference.” Id. “Indifference may appear when prison officials deny,

13

delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which

14

prison physicians provide medical care.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). When a prisoner

15

alleges that delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show

16

that the delay led to further injury. See Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766

17

F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that “mere delay of surgery, without more, is insufficient

18

to state a claim of deliberate medical indifference”).

19

The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. The exhibits demonstrate

20

that the prison medical staff have been consistently treating and examining Plaintiff for years in

21

an attempt to determine whether his colon problems are more than internal hemorrhoids and

22

whether his chest pain is more than anxiety. Additionally, prison officials have been examining

23

Plaintiff’s vision and have been providing Plaintiff with the necessary corrective lenses. The

24

Court finds that, at this stage, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that prison officals are failing to

25

respond to his pain or possible medical needs. As such, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he is

26

likely to succeed on the merits and the Court denies the motion for preliminary injunction.

27

II.

28

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for preliminary injunction
3

1
2
3

(ECF No. 4) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to seal (ECF No. 10) exhibits B, C, D, E,
F, and G of Defendant’s opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is currently in a 90-day stay to give the

5

parties an opportunity to settle their dispute before an answer is filed or the discovery process

6

begins. During this stay, no other pleadings or papers shall be filed in this case, and the parties

7

shall not engage in any discovery.

8

DATED this 18th day of September, 2014.

9
10
11

_________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4