Holtz v. Phillips et al
Filing
83
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AND DIRECTING DOC TO FILE ADDITIONAL MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFF AND ORDERING DELIVERY OF PLAINTIFF'S LEGAL MATERIALS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF TRANSFER; denying as moot 7 Motion for Prospective Temporary Injunctive Relief; denying as moot 30 Motion for an In-Person Hearing; denying 49 Motion for TRO; denying as moot 61 Motion Supplementing Request for an In-Person Hearing. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (CV, Case Administrator)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
2
3
No.
RONALD HOLTZ,
CV-14-5018-EFS
4
Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
JOELLA PHILLIPS, Physician
Assistant; PETER BECK, MSW, M-Div,
Mental Health Program Manager;
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, SECRETARY BERNARD
WARNER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY
KEVIN BOVENKAMP, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SCOTT R. FRAKES, (DOC)
MANAGER/MEDICAL DIRECTOR ROY
GONZALEZ, (DOC) HEALTH CARE
MANAGER MARY JOE CURREY, COYOTE
RIDGE CORRECTIONS CENTER,
SUPERINTENDENT JEFFREY UTTEHT,
HEALTH CARE MANAGER DARREN
CHLIPALA, DR. B. RODRIGUEZ,
PSYCHIATRIST DR. MICHAEL REZNICEK,
WASHINGTON STATE PENITENTIARY,
SUPERINTENDENT, STEVEN SINCLAR,
MEDICAL DIRECTOR JAMES EDWARDS,
DR. F. SMITH, MENTAL HEALTH
PHYSICIAN MELANIE HOWARD, AMERICAN
DISABILITIES SPECIALIST HOLLY
DE/CAMBRE (DOC), in official and
individual capacities, CHIEF
MEDICAL OFFICER G. STEVEN HAMMOND,
PH.D.,
20
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AND
DIRECTING DOC TO FILE ADDITIONAL
MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION WITH REGARD
TO PLAINTIFF AND ORDERING
DELIVERY OF PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL
MATERIALS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF
TRANSFER
Defendants.
21
22
On May 20, 2014, a telephonic scheduling conference was held,
23
during which four motions held in abeyance were discussed and a trial
24
date was set.
25
Defendant
26
ORDER - 1
Plaintiff Ronald Holtz participated pro se, while
Washington
State
Department
of
Corrections
(DOC)
was
1
represented
by
Joseph
2
Edwards
from
the
Attorney
General
of
Washington’s Office.
Previously, during a motion hearing on May 6, 2014, the Court
3
4
heard argument on a variety of motions.
5
issued an Order holding four motions in abeyance pending the Court’s
6
review of documentation submitted by DOC regarding the transfer of
7
Plaintiff
8
Washington. The Court wanted to ensure that Plaintiff’s transfer was
9
not an act of bad faith by DOC before ruling on certain matters.
to
finds
the
that
Washington
DOC
did
On May 8, 2014, the Court
Corrections
not
act
in
Center
bad
(WCC)
faith
in
in
Shelton,
The
10
Court
transferring
11
Plaintiff to WCC and, for the reasons that follow below, the Court
12
denies the four motions held in abeyance.
13
to submit new documentation with regard to the Plaintiff’s need for a
14
medical wedge.
15
his required legal materials within thirty days of his transfer to
16
WCC.
17
I.
The Court also directs DOC
The Court also orders DOC to provide Plaintiff with
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO COMPEL TRANSFER TO MONROE CORRECTIONAL
COMPLEX
18
During
the
hearing,
the
parties
first
discussed
Plaintiff’s
19
request that the Court compel his transfer to the Monroe Correctional
20
Complex
(MCC).
This
request
arose
from
Plaintiff’s
Motion
for
21
Temporary
Restraining
Order,
ECF
No.
49.
The
Court
sought
22
clarification regarding what Plaintiff was requesting in this motion
23
during the May 6, 2014 hearing, and interpreted the motion for a
24
temporary
restraining
order
to
be
a
motion
to
compel
Plaintiff’s
25
transfer to MCC.
26
ORDER - 2
Because the documentation submitted by DOC contains
1
no indicia of bad faith or malicious intent, the Court has no basis to
2
channel Plaintiff to MCC rather than WCC.
It
3
is
well
settled
that
“an
inmate
has
no
justifiable
4
expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular prison
5
within a State.”
6
the
7
complete
8
facilities “[w]henever in its judgment the best interests of the state
9
or the welfare of any prisoner confined in any penal institution will
State
of
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983).
Washington
discretionary
has
granted
authority
the
to
Secretary
transfer
of
And
Corrections
prisoners
10
be better served by his or her transfer.”
11
solid foundation on which to proceed, this Court will not interfere
12
with DOC’s lawful use of its discretionary powers.
13
RCW § 72.68.010.
among
Without a
Rather than assert any factual basis for his request, Plaintiff
14
points to the unknown.
15
suffer worse circumstances, be subject to more retaliation.”
16
49-1 at 1.
17
assumes the existing record before the Court establishes the need for
18
the Court to intervene in his transfer.
19
does not establish that he faces any imminent harm because of this
20
transfer.
21
proves there was foul play or punitive intent with regard to the
22
transfer decision.
23
its discretionary authority.
24
The
He states “no one knows what awaits me, will I
ECF No.
In attempting to compel his transfer to MCC, Plaintiff
But the Plaintiff’s motion
Nor does the Plaintiff provide any factual record that
Court
He offers no indication that DOC has overstepped
recognizes
that
Plaintiff
has
minimal
access
to
25
internal DOC documentation regarding his transfer, so he has limited
26
means to establish malicious intent or bad faith behind the transfer.
ORDER - 3
1
However, the Court accounted for this inequity by ordering DOC to
2
submit a documentary record regarding Plaintiff’s impending transfer
3
to
4
combination with the pre-existing record.
5
Court finds that the documentation merely describes an administrative
6
process
7
programs at WCC, while not qualifying for certain programs at MCC; the
8
documentation gives no appearance of a bad faith transfer.
WCC.
The
whereby
Rather,
9
Court
the
reviewed
the
this
Plaintiff
factual
record,
was
record
ECF
Nos.
75
&
76,
in
Based on this review, the
deemed
before
to
the
qualify
Court
for
certain
suggests
that
10
Plaintiff’s transfer away from the Washington State Penitentiary (WSP)
11
in Walla Walla is appropriate.
12
and thoroughly read the record; it is clear that Plaintiff desires a
13
transfer in order to be closer to an HIV specialist.
14
clear
15
Plaintiff will be closer to an HIV specialist, and he will no longer
16
be burdened by the myriad troubles allegedly tied to his incarceration
17
at WSP.
18
request under ECF No. 49 is denied.
19
II.
that
Plaintiff
does
The Court has listened to Plaintiff
not
wish
to
remain
at
It is equally
WSP.
At
WCC,
The Court will not restrain Plaintiff’s transfer, and his
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF AND OTHER MOTIONS TIED
TO THIS REQUEST
1.
20
Because the transfer will proceed as planned, another matter in
21
abeyance,
Plaintiff’s
Motion
for
Prospective
Temporary
Injunctive
22
Relief, ECF No. 7, is likewise denied.
The motion makes two general
requests:
HIV
23
1)
a
transfer
for
better
treatment
and
2)
more
24
responsive treatment of Plaintiff’s other medical problems.
To obtain
25
preliminary
26
ORDER - 4
relief,
Plaintiff
must
establish
1)
he
is
likely
to
1
succeed on the merits, 2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in
2
the absence of preliminary relief, 3) the balance of equities tips in
3
his favor, and 4) preliminary relief is in the public interest.
4
Winter, 555 U.S. 7, 20.
5
approach, these elements are “balanced, so that a stronger showing of
6
one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the
7
Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).
8
Plaintiff does not establish any of these elements in the record, and
9
the Court sees no indication that the Plaintiff would be able to
See
Under the Ninth Circuit’s “sliding scale”
The
10
establish any of these elements in a motion hearing.
But even if the
11
elements were established by Plaintiff, the Court sees no need to hold
12
a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary relief because the
13
Court finds that Plaintiff’s transfer to WCC renders moot the relief
14
requested in this motion.
15
the true nature of the relief requested.
16
A.
However, there is some disagreement over
A Transfer for Better HIV Treatment
17
In Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No.
18
49, he states that the relief requested has always been a transfer to
19
MCC with “disease control doctor D. Lopez-DeCastilla and [the] mental
20
health transitional programs [available at MCC].”
21
In the May 6, 2014 hearing, Plaintiff also stated that MCC has been
22
the object of his requested relief all along.
23
as to the narrowness of his requested relief are not supported by the
24
record.
25
an option.
26
transfer to “Western Washington” – presumably any facility in western
ORDER - 5
ECF No. 49-1 at 1.
However, his assertions
Plaintiff has always noted the Monroe Correctional Complex as
ECF No. 7.
But Plaintiff has more generally sought a
1
Washington – in order to receive more frequent care from Dr. Lara
2
Strick, Plaintiff’s disease control specialist who is based in western
3
Washington.
4
to present a moving target with regard to the relief requested in his
5
Motion for Prospective Temporary Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 7.
6
reviewing the record, the Court finds that it is reasonable to accept
7
the
8
facility as the focus of Plaintiff’s motion.
more
general
Even
9
ECF No. 3 at 31; ECF No. 7-1 at 3.
though
request
for
Plaintiff
a
does
transfer
not
to
receive
Thus, Plaintiff seems
a
western
the
exact
After
Washington
relief
he
10
desires, the Court finds that a transfer to WCC achieves the more
11
general and more important goal of moving Plaintiff away from WSP to a
12
facility where he will receive more regular treatment from an HIV
13
specialist.
14
visits WSP once every three months.
15
Furthermore, as discussed supra, the Court will not interfere with
16
DOC’s lawful use of its discretionary powers; Plaintiff does not have
17
a right to be transferred to a facility of his choosing.
18
U.S. at 245.
19
Temporary Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 7, that requests a transfer for
20
better HIV treatment is denied as moot because it is being fulfilled.
21
B.
22
Dr. Strick makes monthly visits to WCC, while she only
ECF No. 66 at 3; ECF No. 22.
Olim, 461
Thus, the prong of Plaintiff’s Motion for Prospective
The Need for Better Medical Treatment in General
Ancillary to Plaintiff’s request for a transfer is Plaintiff’s
23
request
for
24
allegedly poor healthcare treatment.
25
order better, more responsive healthcare treatment.
26
will be treated by different healthcare providers at WCC, it is not
ORDER - 6
removal
from
immediate
physical
harm
relating
to
his
He generally asks the Court to
Because Plaintiff
1
clear
whether
2
treatment will persist.
3
staff.
With new staff, the specific harm complained of will no longer
4
be
issue.
5
institutional
6
responsiveness to Plaintiff’s medical needs.
7
may be present at WCC, it is unclear whether this general harm will
8
persist in a new facility with new administration and new programs.
9
The Court has no basis for ordering more responsive treatment because
10
there is no record of treatment at WCC. In the eyes of the Court, the
11
record that does exist with regard to Plaintiff’s treatment neither
12
establishes specific harm resulting from poor healthcare treatment nor
13
general harm resulting from DOC indifference.
14
Court finds that the record reflects regular and timely responses by
15
DOC to the Plaintiff’s medical needs.
16
on
17
Prospective Temporary Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 7, requests the Court
18
to order more responsive medical treatment, the motion is denied as
19
moot.
an
phantom
the
alleged
harm.
Plaintiff
arising
To
of
harm
from
poor
healthcare
The alleged harm came under the care of WSP
However,
harm
threat
the
from
also
DOC
extent
complains
indifference
of
a
and
general
lack
of
While this general harm
To the contrary, the
The Court cannot grant relief
that
Plaintiff’s
Motion
for
20
Beyond the general concerns, Plaintiff makes a very specific
21
request with regard to his healthcare treatment; he requests a medical
22
wedge for use while sleeping.
23
minimizes damage to his esophagus resulting from acid and indigestion
24
issues.
25
medical staff and issued by the prison property department; it appears
26
to be a process with numerous administrative hurdles.
ORDER - 7
This wedge props him up and allegedly
According to the record, a wedge must be prescribed by prison
The WSP medical
1
staff determined that multiple blankets could serve as a replacement
2
wedge.
3
imminent danger from having blankets in the place of a wedge.
4
this element of requested relief enters the same haze of uncertainty
5
as the general request for better healthcare treatment – where there
6
is no clear danger, there is no clear relief from that danger.
The record before the Court does not sufficiently establish
Thus,
7
However, because the record reflects that Plaintiff has been
8
prescribed a medical wedge in the past, the Court is concerned that
9
Plaintiff may indeed need access to this medical instrument.
As a
10
result, the Court orders DOC to submit documentation detailing: 1) the
11
medications Plaintiff is receiving for his esophageal problems, 2) the
12
frequency of the medication use, 3) whether Plaintiff will have access
13
to a medical wedge at WCC, and 4) if the Plaintiff will not have
14
access to a medical wedge at WCC, the reasoning behind the denial of
15
access.
16
June 19, 2014.
This documentation must be submitted no later than Thursday,
Ultimately,
17
Plaintiff’s
transfer
either
grants
his
requested
18
relief or disarms any alleged threats of immediate harm from poor
19
medical treatment.
20
the only alleged threat that is remotely established in the record –
21
Plaintiff’s lack of access to a medical wedge.
22
will be evaluated by the Court in camera once DOC submits the ordered
23
documentation, and the Court will determine whether an Order directing
24
DOC to provide Plaintiff with a wedge is necessary.
Accordingly, the
25
Court
for
26
Temporary Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 7, as moot.
denies
ORDER - 8
the
Furthermore, the Court has ordered DOC to explain
entirety
of
Plaintiff’s
This alleged threat
Motion
Prospective
Additionally,
1
because
the
motion
for
preliminary
relief
is
2
denied and there will be no hearing on this motion, the Court need not
3
determine whether the hearing should be in-person.
4
Motion/Request for an In-Person Hearing, ECF No. 30, and Plaintiff’s
5
Motion Supplementing Plaintiff’s Motion/Notice of Request for an In-
6
Person Hearing, ECF No. 61, are denied as moot.
Thus, Plaintiff’s
7
Finally, because of concerns over Plaintiff’s access to legal
8
materials that sparked extensive motions practice earlier in this
9
case, the Court wants to ensure that Plaintiff will have access to his
10
legal
11
Plaintiff
12
phonebook,
13
Plaintiff’s legal proceedings.
14
Plaintiff with his required legal materials and his phonebook within
15
thirty days of his transfer to WCC.
16
17
materials
also
within
voiced
which
a
his
reasonable
distress
allegedly
contains
time
over
after
loosing
his
transfer.
access
information
to
his
pertinent
to
Thus, the Court orders DOC to provide
A separate Scheduling Order will be issued with regard to the
trial date and deadlines associated thereto.
18
19
For the above-given reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
20
1. Plaintiff’s request that the Court compel his transfer to MCC
21
arising from the Court’s interpretation of Plaintiff’s Motion
22
for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 49, is DENIED.
23
2. Plaintiff’s
Motion
for
Prospective
Temporary
Injunctive
24
Relief, ECF No. 7, Plaintiff’s Motion/Request for an In-Person
25
Hearing,
26
ORDER - 9
ECF
No.
30,
and
Plaintiff’s
Motion
Supplementing
1
Plaintiff’s Motion/Notice of Request for an In-Person Hearing,
2
ECF No. 61, are DENIED AS MOOT.
3
3. By Thursday, June 19, 2014, DOC shall submit documentation
4
detailing: 1) the medications Plaintiff is receiving for his
5
esophageal problems, 2) the frequency of the medication use,
6
3) whether Plaintiff will have access to a medical wedge at
7
WCC, and 4) if the Plaintiff will not have access to a medical
8
wedge at WCC, the reasoning behind the denial of access.
9
10
11
12
13
4. DOC shall provide Plaintiff with his required legal materials
and his phonebook within thirty days of his transfer to WCC.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this
Order and forward a copy to Plaintiff and counsel.
DATED this
26th
day of May 2014.
14
______
s/Edward F. Shea
_____________
EDWARD F. SHEA
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Q:\EFS\Civil\2014\5018.denyPIandTRO.lc1.docx
ORDER - 10
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?