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
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?