Crawley v. Roberts et al

Filing 42

OPINION AND ORDER signed on 01/27/2025 by Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai: Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction and renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF Nos. 17 , 24 , 35 ) are DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 40 ) is GRANTED. Discovery shall be completed and dispositive motions shall be filed by March 10, 2025. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 01/27/2025.) (bd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
BRYAN WAYNE CRAWLEY,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:24-cv-00323-MTK
OPINION AND ORDER

v.
WARREN ROBERTS; SANDY WHITBREAD;
DANA BAILEY; MICHELE DAVIES; ODOC
HEALTH SERVICES; TLC COMMITTEE
JOHN DOE; JANE DOE,
Defendants.
________________________________________
KASUBHAI, District Judge.
Plaintiff, an adult in custody (AIC) at the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged that Defendants exhibited deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff now moves for a preliminary injunction
requiring Defendants to “reinstate” an “effective pain treatment plan” that includes extra pillows,
extra blankets, extra towels, an extra mattress, a cane, ice four times a day, and restrictions of
“no stairs” and a lower bunk. Plaintiff fails to show that a preliminary injunction is warranted
under the circumstances, and the motion is denied.
///
1

- OPINION AND ORDER

DISCUSSION
To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show “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.” Winter v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Alternatively, Plaintiff may
show “’serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance of hardships that tips sharply” in his
favor, provided that he “also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the
injunction is in the public interest.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127,
1135 (9th Cir. 2011). Under either approach, Plaintiff must carry his burden of persuasion by a
“clear showing” of the four elements set forth above. Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th
Cir. 2012). Plaintiff fails to meet this burden.
First, Plaintiff fails to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff complains
of nerve pain and previously received medical orders allowing extra pillows, blankets,
mattresses, and towels, an extra mattress, and medical restrictions of no stairs and a lower bunk.
Recently, however, Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) medical personnel have deemed
many of these items and restrictions medically unnecessary. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’
failure to extend the previous medical orders constitutes deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Prison officials and physicians violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel
and unusual punishment when they act with deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious
medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096
(9th Cir. 2006). Deliberate indifference is established when a prison official knows that a
prisoner faced a “substantial risk of serious harm” and disregards that risk by failing to take
2

- OPINION AND ORDER

reasonable measures to abate it. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). In other words, a
“prison official acts with ‘deliberate indifference ... only if the [prison official] knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.’” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). “Mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical
condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights.” Id.
The record reflects that Plaintiff has received renewed authorization for a cane, a lower
bunk restriction, and an extra blanket. Mancuso Decl. Exs. 1-3. Further, Plaintiff has received
medical treatment for his condition, including an x-ray and MRI of his knee and an orthopedic
consultation. Id. Exs. 4-5. To establish deliberate indifference in these circumstances, Plaintiff
must set forth sufficient facts suggesting “that the course of treatment” the ODOC medical
providers “chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances” and was chosen “in
conscious disregard of an excessive risk” to Plaintiff’s health. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d
1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Plaintiff produces no evidence showing that an
extra mattress, extra pillows and towels, and a stair restriction are medical necessary or that
Defendants have purposefully withheld them in conscious disregard of the risks to his health. At
most, Plaintiff presents a difference of medical opinion between him and his providers that does
not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058.
Because Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the items and restriction he seeks are
medically necessary, Plaintiff cannot establish the remaining factors – irreparable harm, balance
of equities, and the public interest – required for issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff also renews his request for the appointment of counsel. As the Court previously
explained, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this is an exceptional case warranting the

3

- OPINION AND ORDER

appointment of volunteer counsel. Plaintiff can articulate his claims and has pursued several
motions and requests for relief.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction and renewed Motion for Appointment of
Counsel (ECF Nos. 17, 24, 35) are DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED. Discovery shall be
completed and dispositive motions shall be filed by March 10, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 27th day of January 2025.
s/ Mustafa T. Kasubhai
MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (He / Him)
United States District Judge

4

- OPINION AND ORDER