(PC) Taylor v. Cate et al, No. 1:2011cv01957 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 5/14/2012 recommending that 3 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION be DENIED. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 6/18/2012.(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

(PC) Taylor v. Cate et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 TRACY TAYLOR, CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01957-LJO-GBC (PC) 10 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 11 v. 12 MATTHEW CATE, et al., 13 Doc. 3 Defendants. 14 / OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 15 16 17 I. Procedural History and Plaintiff’s Allegations On November 28, 2011, Plaintiff Tracy Taylor (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner 18 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 19 alleging failure to provide orthopedic boots from the vendor of Plaintiff’s choice and denial of 20 orthotics and orthopedic slippers on the grounds that medical staff has not established medical 21 necessity. Compl. at 5-6, 8, Doc. 1. On November 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary 22 injunction to allow Plaintiff to purchase orthotic boots, arch supports, and orthotic slippers from his 23 vendor of choice. Mot. Inj. at 9-10, Doc. 3. 24 25 II. Legal Standard for Motion for Preliminary Injunction “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 26 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 27 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural 28 Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The purpose of preliminary injunctive Page 1 of 3 Dockets.Justia.com 1 relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable injury pending the resolution of the 2 underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 3 1984). 4 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must 5 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, (1983); Valley 6 Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 47 7 (1982). If the court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the 8 matter in question. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] 9 if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may 10 not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States 11 Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 12 The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in 13 general who are not parties to this action. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 14 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is 15 limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is 16 proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 17 18 III. Analysis The undersigned has dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The 19 undersigned found that Defendants were not indifferent to Plaintiff’s complaints but provided 20 Plaintiff with orthotic boots and treated Plaintiff according to medical necessity. As a matter of law, 21 differences of opinion between prisoner and prison doctors fails to show deliberate indifference to 22 serious medical needs. Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). “Plaintiff’s first 23 amended complaint alleges that Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff with the type of 24 orthopedic boot that meets with Plaintiff’s satisfaction. A difference in opinion does not amount to 25 deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th 26 Cir. 1989).” Rust v. Garcia, 2011 WL 3319889, at *7 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2011). 27 Therefore, Plaintiff has not met the requirements for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff has 28 not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his action. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Page 2 of 3 1 Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and there is no operative pleading 2 in this action at this time. Additionally, Plaintiff has not demonstrated irreparable harm by being 3 denied to purchase orthotic boots, arch supports, and orthotic slippers from his vendor of choice. 4 5 IV. Conclusion and Recommendation Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary 6 injunction, filed November 28, 2011, should be DENIED. 7 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days 9 after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 10 with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 11 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 12 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th 13 Cir. 1991). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: 17 7j8cce May 14, 2012 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 3

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.