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)

Download PDF
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?