Aurelio Martin Sepulveda v. James Lee, No. 5:2010cv01705 - Document 75 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 66 is DENIED. The Court refers the remainder of plaintiff's outstanding requests and motions to Magistrate Judge Walsh for ruling. (gk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Aurelio Martin Sepulveda v. James Lee Doc. 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 AURELIO MARTIN SEPULVEDA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) JAMES LEE, M.D., ET AL.; ) ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) ) Case No. EDCV 10-1705 CAS (PJW) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 19 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 On November 8, 2010, plaintiff Aurelio Martin Sepulveda, then an inmate at 22 Ironwood State Prison (“Ironwood”) in Blythe, California, filed this civil rights suit 23 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants James Lee, M.D., N. Williams, M.D., M. 24 Tolentino, a supervising Registered Nurse, Nurse Tennefos, Nurse Johnson, Nurse 25 Morales, J. Obaiza, M.D. and Nurse Combs in their individual and official capacities. 26 Dkt. No. 3. All of these individuals are medical personnel employed by the California 27 Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) at Ironwood. Plaintiff claims 28 that defendants (1) violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and Dockets.Justia.com 1 unusual punishment by acting with deliberate indifference towards his medical needs; 2 (2) violating his First Amendment right to submit a prison grievance by retaliating 3 against him with respect to his medical care. Compl. ¶¶ 128–143. The suit was referred 4 to Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. 5 On February 4, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss this action; plaintiff filed an 6 opposition to defendants’ motion thereafter. On July 27, 2011, Magistrate Judge Walsh 7 issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal of a number of 8 defendants and the majority of plaintiff’s claims. Dkt. No. 34. On October 6, 2011, the 9 Court adopted the R&R over plaintiff’s objection. Dkt. No. 40. Magistrate Judge Walsh 10 adopted a scheduling order on November 28, 2011. Thereafter, Magistrate Judge Walsh 11 granted plaintiff’s first and second requests to amend the scheduling order. Dkt. Nos. 12 54, 56. 13 On September 25, 2012, plaintiff filed a third request to amend the scheduling 14 order. Dkt. No. 57. Before obtaining a ruling on this request, on December 17, 2012, 15 plaintiff filed a fourth request to amend the scheduling order along with a request for a 16 preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 61. Defendant opposed plaintiff’s request for a 17 preliminary injunction on January 3, 2013. Dkt. No. 63. On January 8, 2013, plaintiff 18 filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion for leave to amend his 19 complaint. Dkt. No. 66. Defendants opposed both of plaintiff’s motions on February 8, 20 2013. Dkt. Nos. 69, 70. 21 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on January 8, 2013. Plaintiff 22 has yet to file an opposition. 23 II. 24 BACKGROUND The facts underlying plaintiff’s suit are set forth more fully in Judge Walsh’s 25 Report and Recommendation, filed on July 27, 2011, recommending that defendants’ 26 motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, which the Court adopted in full. 27 Plaintiff’s remaining claim is against defendants Lee, Williams, Tolentino, and Combs 28 2 1 for retaliation. In support of this claim, plaintiff alleges that the aforementioned 2 defendants “changed his blood sugar regimen to require twice daily fingersticks in 3 retaliation for plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment right to file a prison grievance 4 against Nurse Tennefos.” R&R at 17 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 140–141). Plaintiff alleged he 5 suffered physical and psychological harm as a result of defendants’ actions, and that 6 there was no legitimate basis for the new regimen. The Court found that “[l]iberally 7 construed and taken as true, these allegations state a retaliation claim.” Id. at 18. The 8 Court disregarded defendants’ contention that they were simply attempting to provide 9 proper medical care, as the Court was bound to accept plaintiff’s version of the events in 10 11 question for purposes of a motion to dismiss. Id. In his initial request for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff claims that defendant 12 Lee has continued to retaliate against him and seeks an order “directing Defendant Lee 13 to stop Retaliating against Plaintiff, and that he not be allowed by his Superiors to 14 involve himself in any Decisions made or Appeals submitted by Plaintiff concerning the 15 Treatment of Plaintiff’s Medical Conditions. Dkt. No. 61 at 4. Plaintiff alleges that he 16 had been seen by Dr. Rohrdanz, who issued a “chrono” accommodating plaintiff’s 17 medical needs, but when this order was forwarded to Dr. Lee, he modified the order 18 finding that plaintiff was not prevented from “proning out” on the floor. Id. at 3. 19 Plaintiff also claims that Dr. Lee was involved in wrongfully denying a second-level 20 review of plaintiff’s administrative complaint, and that while the record in one of 21 plaintiff’s appeals indicated that Dr. Lee had approved a steroid injection for him, no 22 such injection was ever provided. Id. at 6. 23 Plaintiff then filed a detailed motion for a preliminary injunction on January 8, 24 2013, contending that Dr. Lee has continued to systematically retaliate against him. Dkt. 25 No. 66. Plaintiff claims that a physician recommended him to an off-site specialist to 26 treat his pain symptoms, but that Dr. Lee denied plaintiff access to such treatment. Id. at 27 7. According to plaintiff, Dr. Lee knows that the failure to refer plaintiff to off-site 28 3 1 providers will cause him unnecessary pain and suffering, as well as restrict his ability to 2 function, but that Dr. Lee has persisted in refusing plaintiff treatment. Id. at 8. Plaintiff 3 further contends that Dr. Lee has wrongfully denied him opiate-based medication despite 4 his severe pain symptoms and directed his staff to provide plaintiff with anti-psychotic 5 medications instead. Id. at 11–13. Plaintiff submits a detailed affidavit in support of his 6 motion. 7 On February 5, 2013, plaintiff was transferred to the California Institution for 8 Men in Chino, California. Dkt. No. 72. 9 III. 10 LEGAL STANDARD A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy.” Winter v. Natural Res. 11 Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 12 must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer 13 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in 14 his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. 15 City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Cal Pharms. Ass’n v. 16 Maxwell-Jolly, 563 F.3d 847, 849 (9th Cir. 2009). Alternatively, “‘serious questions 17 going to the merits’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can 18 support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are 19 also met.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 20 2011). A “serious question” is one on which the movant “has a fair chance of success on 21 the merits.” Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th 22 Cir. 1984). Under either formulation, demonstrating a likelihood of success on the 23 merits and irreparable harm is “most critical.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 24 (2009). 25 Further limits to the Court’s power to issue a preliminary injunction are contained 26 in the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Under this section: 27 /// 28 4 1 The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court 2 finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary 3 to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means 4 necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give 5 substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation 6 of a criminal justice system caused by the relief. 7 Id. 8 IV. 9 10 11 DISCUSSION After reviewing plaintiff’s submissions and defendants’ responses thereto, the Court concludes that a preliminary injunction should not issue in this case. . First, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction appears to be moot, as 12 plaintiff no longer resides at the Ironwood State Prison in Blythe, California. All of 13 allegations supporting plaintiff’s motion concern the medical staff at Ironwood, who are 14 no longer involved in the provision of plaintiff’s medical care or the consideration of 15 plaintiff’s administrative complaints and appeals. Because plaintiff now resides at a new 16 facility, there appears to be no risk of any retaliation by the medical staff at Ironwood 17 against plaintiff, either through the alleged withholding of medical care in retaliation for 18 plaintiff’s previous complaints or through further denials of plaintiff’s numerous 19 administrative appeals. Accordingly, there appears to be no risk of future irreparable 20 injury, which negates any need for injunctive relief at present. 21 Second, even if plaintiff’s motion were not moot, the Court finds that plaintiff has 22 failed to carry his burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits of his 23 claims remaining claim for retaliation. “Within the prison context, a viable claim of 24 First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state 25 actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s 26 protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First 27 Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 28 5 1 correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff 2 has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the first element of his claim, which 3 arises out of plaintiff’s allegation that defendants changed his insulin testing regimen in 4 response to plaintiff’s filing of administrative complaints against various defendants, all 5 members of the prison’s medical staff. This is unrelated to the substance of plaintiff’s 6 preliminary injunction request, which concerns later alleged actions taken in response to 7 plaintiff’s administrative complaints, and therefore is an improper basis for seeking 8 injunctive relief unrelated to the substance of plaintiff’s complaint. Even considering the 9 totality of plaintiff’s allegations in his complaint and assertions in his declaration, 10 however, plaintiff has not demonstrated that prison medical staff took adverse actions 11 against him. What plaintiff has demonstrated is that he frequently disagrees with the 12 decisions of the medical staff at Ironwood, but this alone would not support a successful 13 retaliation claim, nor the issuance of a preliminary injunction. 14 V. 15 CONCLUSION In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is 16 DENIED. The Court refers the remainder of plaintiff’s outstanding requests and 17 motions to Magistrate Judge Walsh for ruling. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: May 6, 2013 21 _______________________ 22 CHRISTINA A. SNYDER United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
