Noyola v. Doe et al

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Re: 24 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (AY, Case Administrator)**11 PAGES, PRINT ALL**(Mario Noyola, Prisoner ID: 767684)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5
6
7

No.

MARIO NOYOLA,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

4:16-CV-5041-EFS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

v.
KENNETH JENNINGS; JEFFREY A.
UTTECHT; STEVEN HAMMOND; DAN
PACHOLKE; DICK MORGAN; JOHN REIDY;
and A. DELEON-DURAN,

12
Defendants.
13
14
Before

the

Court,

without

oral

argument,

is

Plaintiff

Mario

15
Noyola’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 24.

Plaintiff

16
requests that the Court require Defendants to (1) provide Plaintiff
17
with

an

eye

exam

conducted

by

qualified

personnel;

(2)

provide

18
Plaintiff

with

a

new

eyeglass

prescription;

and

(3)

change

their

19
policies, practices, and procedures regarding the “one-eye policy,”
20
alleged

delays

in

treatment,

and

alleged

inadequate

staffing.

21
Defendants respond that Plaintiff has not met the requirements for a
22
preliminary injunction, as new glasses are not “medically necessary
23
for Plaintiff at this time” and the internal operations of a prison
24
are subject to substantial deference.
25
26

ORDER - 1

Having reviewed the pleadings

1

and the file in this matter, the Court is fully informed and denies

2

the motion.
I.

3
Plaintiff

4

is

inmate

Plaintiff’s

at

Coyote

Plaintiff was previously diagnosed with a compound myopic astigmatism

7

in both eyes. ECF No. 24 at 13. In October 2014, Plaintiff noted

8

blurry vision while wearing his prescription glasses. ECF No. 24 at

9

14. On January 17, 2015, Plaintiff requested medical treatment for

10

headaches, eye strain, blurred vision, and loss of depth perception

11

related to the use of his glasses. ECF No. 24 at 14.

12

another request for treatment in March 2015, a Snellen eye exam was

13

conducted on April 18, 2015. Ex. A, ECF No. 24 at 25. The certified

14

nursing assistant performing the exam, Defendant Adriana Deleon-Duran,

15

determined that Plaintiff’s vision was 20/20 in his right eye, 20/25

16

in his left eye, and 20/20 for both eyes. Ex. A, ECF No. 24 at 25.

17

Based

18

optometrist appointment under prison policy. Ex. A, ECF No. 24 at 25;

19

Ex. B, ECF No. 24 at 30; Ex. C, ECF No. 24 at 35. Plaintiff was

20

directed to sign up for sick call to address his symptoms. Ex. B, ECF

21

No. 24 at 30.

22

On

June

1,

2015,

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

filed

support

did

a

not

of

his

Center.

6

determination,

in

Corrections

According

that

Declaration

Ridge

5

on

to

an

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

After sending

qualify

grievance

motion,

for

regarding

an

his

23

inability to see an optometrist. See Ex. F, ECF No. 24 at 42. That

24

grievance was subsequently denied, and Plaintiff appealed that denial.

25

See Ex. F, ECF No. 24 at 42. On August 7, 2015, Plaintiff went to the

26

medical department, and the licensed practical nurse with whom he met

ORDER - 2

1

recommended that Plaintiff see an optometrist, made a referral to that

2

effect, and ordered various lab tests. Ex. E, ECF No. 24 at 40. On

3

August 21, 2015, prison officials responded to Plaintiff’s grievance

4

and directed that the health services manager recheck his vision. Ex.

5

F, ECF No. 24 at 42. Plaintiff went to another medical appointment on

6

September 1, 2015, and that practitioner recommended that Plaintiff

7

meet with an optometrist. Ex. G, ECF No. 24 at 44–45. Despite these

8

recommendations,

9

medical on October 5, 2015, he was told by Defendant Kenneth Jennings

10

that he would not qualify for an optometrist exam or new glasses under

11

the prison policy due to the results of his April 2015 eye exam. ECF

12

No. 24 at 18.
Plaintiff

13

Plaintiff

filed

represents

additional

that

medical

when

he

kites

to

again

the

went

to

optometry

14

department in October 2015. Ex. H, ECF No. 24 at 47; Ex. I, ECF No. 24

15

at 49. The department responded that Plaintiff did not qualify for an

16

exam based on the prior finding that, with his glasses, he had 20/20

17

vision in one eye, 20/25 vision in the other eye, and 20/20 vision

18

overall. Ex. J, ECF No. 24 at 51.
Plaintiff

19

then

sent

a

letter

to

the

prison

superintendent,

20

Defendant Jeffrey A. Uttecht, who arranged for Plaintiff to meet with

21

an optometrist. Ex. K, ECF No. 24 at 53–54; Ex. L, ECF No. 24 at 56.

22

On January 15, 2016, the optometrist, Defendant John Reidy, conducted

23

an

24

glasses was 20/40 in each eye individually and in both eyes when

25

tested together, and concluded that Plaintiff did not qualify for new

26

glasses.

exam

ORDER - 3

and

Ex.

determined

M,

ECF

that

No.

24

Plaintiff’s

at

58.

vision

Plaintiff

when

wearing

again

wrote

his

to

1

Superintendent

Uttecht,

2

Ex.

N,

ECF

No.

24

at

60–61.

Mr.

Uttecht

responded as follows:

6

The optometrist and provider you have seen most recently in
Health
Services
concur
that
your
current
glasses
prescription
may
be
contributing
to
your
symptoms.
Unfortunately, with your current prescription glasses, you
do not meet the criteria for new glasses. I was reassured
that continuing to wear your current glasses will not cause
eye damage or worsening of your vision.

7

Ex. R, ECF No. 24 at 66. Superintendent Uttecht also advised Plaintiff

8

that he could pursue care outside of the prison system through the

9

Offender-Paid Health Care system. Ex. R, ECF No. 24 at 66.

3
4
5

II.

10
Federal

11

Rule

of

Civil

ANALYSIS

Procedure

65

allows

for

entry

of

a

12

preliminary injunction in certain extraordinary circumstances.

13

R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1); see Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555

14

U.S. 7 (2008).

15

plaintiff must establish “that he is likely to succeed on the merits,

16

that

17

preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor,

18

and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at

19

20. Under this inquiry, “courts must balance the competing claims of

20

injury and must consider the effect on each party of the granting or

21

withholding

22

considerations are also relevant when the relief requested involves

23

prison conditions: “Preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly

24

drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court

25

finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means

26

necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

he

ORDER - 4

is

To justify issuance of a preliminary injunction, a

likely

of

Fed.

the

to

suffer

requested

irreparable

relief.”

harm

Id.

in

at

the

24.

absence

of

Additional

1

As an initial matter, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s third

2

requested relief, regarding revision of prison policy and staffing

3

decisions, would not be the least intrusive means necessary to correct

4

the

5

condition requires preliminary relief. That alleged harm, however,

6

could be corrected through Plaintiff’s first and second requested

7

relief — providing him with an eye examination and new glasses — and

8

does not require change on the institutional level. Accordingly, the

9

Court denies the motion as to the third type of requested relief based

10

on § 3626(a)(2). Below, the Court analyzes the first and second types

11

of relief requested based on the Winter factors.

alleged

harm

in

this

case.

Plaintiff

argues

that

his

vision

12

A. Success on the Merits

13

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to state an Eighth Amendment violation

14

based on prison medical treatment, an inmate must show “deliberate

15

indifference to serious medical needs.”

16

97, 104 (1976).

17

first show a “serious medical need,” by demonstrating that a failure

18

to treat the injury or condition “could result in further significant

19

injury” or cause “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Jett

20

v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting McGuckin v.

21

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled in part on other

22

grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997)

23

(en banc)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Indications that a

24

plaintiff has a serious medical need include ‘the existence of an

25

injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and

26

worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition

ORDER - 5

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

To satisfy this two-part test, the Plaintiff must

1

that significantly affects an individual’s daily activities; or the

2

existence of chronic and substantial pain.’” Colwell v. Bannister, 763

3

F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059–

4

60) (alteration omitted).

5

Second, a Plaintiff must show that the Defendants’ response to

6

the need was deliberately indifferent, meaning that an official “knows

7

of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.”

8

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Gibson

9

v. Cty. of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002)) (internal

10

quotation marks omitted). “[T]he official must both be aware of facts

11

from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of

12

serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer v.

13

Brennan,

14

appear when prison officials deny, delay or intentionally interfere

15

with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in which prison

16

physicians provide medical care.” Colwell, 763 F.3d at 1066 (quoting

17

Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988)).

511

U.S.

825,

837

(1994).

Deliberate

indifference

“may

18

In Colwell v. Bannister, the Ninth Circuit held that prison

19

officials were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical condition

20

when they declined to correct an inmate’s severe cataract, which was

21

causing blindness in one eye, because the inmate could see well out of

22

his other eye. Id. In that case, at least three medical providers

23

recommended that the inmate’s cataract be treated, but treatment was

24

denied due to an administrative policy that an inmate’s vision would

25

not be corrected if he could see well out of one of his eyes. Id. at

26

1064.

The Court held that blindness in one eye as the result of a

ORDER - 6

1

cataract

is

a

serious

medical

condition

and

that

“the

blanket,

2

categorical denial of medically indicated surgery solely on the basis

3

of an administrative policy that ‘one eye is good enough for prison

4

inmates’ is the paradigm of deliberate indifference.” Id. at 1063.

5

In this case, Plaintiff also challenges the “one-eye” policy,

6

but he fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits

7

under the Estelle test. First, Plaintiff does not present evidence to

8

indicate that he has a serious medical need for new glasses. Plaintiff

9

may be legitimately experiencing some headaches and eye strain due to

10

using an old glasses prescription. The results of Plaintiff’s eye

11

exams, however, indicate that his vision is not severely impaired and

12

that

13

glasses may be desirable and helpful to the Plaintiff, there has been

14

no

15

necessary. Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) (en

16

banc)

17

comfortable nor that they provide every amenity that one might find

18

desirable.’” (quoting Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir.

19

1982))).

his

evidence

(“The

There

20

old

prescription

presented

Eighth

is

also

to

is

still

indicate

Amendment

largely

that

new

‘requires

insufficient

effective.

glasses

neither

evidence

of

While

are

that

medically

prisons

deliberate

new

be

medical

21

indifference on the part of the Defendants to establish a likelihood

22

of success at this time. Plaintiff had his vision tested within three

23

months of his initial complaint, subsequently made appointments with

24

and

25

optometrist. It also appears that other tests were conducted to rule

26

out any other potential causes of Plaintiff’s symptoms. See Ex. E, ECF

was

ORDER - 7

seen

by

other

medical

staff,

and

ultimately

saw

an

1

No. 24 at 40. The delay in seeing the optometrist seems to have been

2

primarily

3

indicated that Plaintiff’s vision was not impaired, and Plaintiff

4

presents no evidence that an optometrist would not have been available

5

more

6

Plaintiff

7

recommendations of medical practitioners, Defendants adhered to the

8

recommendations by medical practitioners by giving Defendant a vision

9

examination by an optometrist, and there is no evidence of any medical

10

practitioner recommending that Plaintiff receive new glasses following

11

these examinations.

due

quickly

to

to

the

fact

address

an

that

the

argues

that

the

urgent

result

of

condition.

Defendants

have

the

In

initial

addition,

failed

to

exam

while
follow

12

The care given to Plaintiff, including two vision examinations

13

and at least two other examinations by multiple medical practitioners,

14

is not the type of disregard imagined by the Estelle Court, and that

15

is particularly true when the Court considers the unique concerns of

16

the prison environment. See id. at 1082 (“What is reasonable depends

17

on the circumstances, which normally constrain what actions a state

18

official can take. . . . [The Plaintiff] rests his claim on having to

19

wait for dental care, but prisons are a particularly difficult place

20

to provide such care.”). The fact that Plaintiff was ultimately not

21

given new glasses based on the results of the examinations does not

22

establish deliberate indifference.

23

B. Irreparable Injury

24

Plaintiff has submitted only his own assertions to support his

25

claim that he will be irreparably harmed if the Court does not grant

26

him a preliminary injunction. The only piece of evidence in the record

ORDER - 8

1

that speaks to this issue is the letter from Superintendent Uttecht to

2

Plaintiff, which states: “I was reassured that continuing to wear your

3

current

4

vision.” The results of Plaintiff’s eye exams also seem to indicate

5

that there is not a serious risk of irreparable harm. The Snellen Exam

6

conducted by Defendant Deleon-Duran in April 2015 and the eye exam

7

conducted

8

Plaintiff’s vision, as corrected by glasses, was not significantly

9

impaired. The first exam resulted in a finding that Plaintiff’s vision

glasses

not

by

will

not

Defendant

impaired

Reidy

January

2016

worsening

both

while

indicated

that

There is no evidence at this point to indicate that those exams were

13

flawed

14

Plaintiff’s statements to the contrary, there is no evidence in the

15

record of any medical practitioner recommending that Plaintiff be

16

given new glasses based on the results of his vision examinations.

17

Accordingly, the Court finds that there is insufficient evidence of

18

irreparable injury to justify issuance of a preliminary injunction.

In

exam

your

12

findings.

the

of

optometrist found minor impairment with 20/40 vision in each eye.

erroneous

glasses,

or

11

in

with

damage

was

resulted

all

in

eye

10

or

at

cause

addition,

by

the

despite

19

C. Balance of Equities and the Public Interest

20

In considering the balance of equities and the public interest,

21

the Court notes the unique concerns of the prison environment. Prison

22

reform “is a function of state government officials,” Wright v.

23

Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1133 (9th Cir. 1981), and administrators are to

24

be given “wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of

25

policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve

26

internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.”

ORDER - 9

1

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979). It is clear that “courts

2

may not institute reform programs on their own under the guise of

3

correcting cruel and unusual punishment.” Wright, 642 F.2d at 1135.

4

These considerations weigh against the Court interfering with the

5

internal operations of a prison absent clear indication of a civil

6

rights violation.
In addition, as explained above, there is no evidence that new

7
8

glasses are medically necessary to the Plaintiff. The Court recognizes

9

that an outdated prescription may be causing Plaintiff some

10

discomfort. In addition, the cost of providing an examination to the

11

Plaintiff and providing him with new glasses may be insignificant in

12

the prison’s institutional scheme, but it would likely be cost-

13

prohibitive to provide such an examination and new glasses to all

14

similarly situated inmates. The Court finds that the prison has an

15

interest in maintaining a consistent policy. In addition, due to the

16

resources and cost that would be required to change the prison’s

17

glasses policy and to increase medical staffing, the Court finds that

18

the public’s interest does not favor granting the requested relief at

19

this juncture.
III. CONCLUSION

20
Weighing

21

the

factors

considered

above,

the

Court

finds

that

22

issuance of a preliminary injunction is not appropriate. Plaintiff has

23

not demonstrated a high likelihood of success at this time. There is

24

also no evidence that an irreparable injury would result from failure

25

to grant an injunction. Based on the institutional concerns involved

26

and

the

ORDER - 10

fact

that

no

medical

need

for

new

glasses

has

been

1

demonstrated, the Court also finds that the equities weigh in favor of

2

denying the motion.

3
4
5
6
7

Accordingly,

IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s

Motion

for

a

Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 24, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this

Order and provide copies to Plaintiff and all counsel.
DATED this

22nd

day of December 2016.

8
s/Edward F. Shea
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Q:\EFS\Civil\2016\5041.Noyola.ord.deny.prelim.inj.lc02.docx

ORDER - 11