Williams v. Oregon Department of Corrections et al, No. 3:2010cv00730 - Document 72 (D. Or. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER - For the reasons stated the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order contained in his Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 16th day of December, 2010, by U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown. (peg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Oregon Department of Corrections et al Doc. 72 ,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION KENNETH GREGORY WILLIAMS, Civil No. 10-730-AC Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (ODOC) DR. STEVE SHELTON, (TRCI) PA STEVE GUNDERSON, (TRCI) DR. GREG LYTLE, (OSCI) DR. JOHN DOE #1, MULTNOMAH COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, DR. OLE ERSSON, (CCCI) DR. S. SNIDER, (CCCI) DR. JOHN DOE #2, (OSP) DR. VARGO, (OSP) DR. OLE HANSAN, (OSP) DR. DIGNER, DR. BECKER, (OSP) HEALTH SERVICE MGR. TED RANDELL, RN JENNIFER STEVANS, (OSP) GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR DAVID GILLIES, et al., Defendants. KENNETH GREGORY WILLIAMS SID #4202792 Oregon State Penitentiary 2605 State Street Salem, OR 97310 Plaintiff Pro Se 1 - OPINION AND ORDER - Dockets.Justia.com JOHN R. KROGER Attorney General AARON SPRAGUE Assistant Attorney General ANDREW HALLMAN Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301 Attorneys for Defendants ODOC, Becker, Degner, Gillies, Hansen, Lytle, Randall, Shelton, Snider, Stevens, and Vargo CARLOS J. CALANDRIELLO Multnomah County Attorneys 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 500 Portland, OR 97214 Attorney for Defendants Multnomah Office and Dr. Ole Ersson County Sheriff's BROWN, Judge. Plaintiff, an inmate at the Oregon State Penitentiary, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pro se. Currently before the Court is the request contained in Plaintiff's Complaint for injunction. temporary For the restraining reasons that order follow, or the preliminary Court DENIES Plaintiff's request. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that the Oregon Department of Corrections ("ODOC") and several ODOC health professionals (referred to collectively hereafter as the "State Defendants"), as well as the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office ("MCSO") and a doctor employed 2 - OPINION AND ORDER - by MCSO (referred to hereafter as the "County Defendants"), were all deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendants have failed to provide testing sufficient to diagnose and treat his "suspected piriformus syndrome." In his Complaint, he seeks: A Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction requiring the defendant(s), to provide plaintiff consultation with an independent specialist and with the scientific tests necessary to determine the cause of plaintiff's pain and long suffering. A specialist to do a thorough examination of plaintiff's medical condition and prescribe appropriate treatment. Defendants argue sought. Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief The State Defendants contend Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that Defendants' alleged failure to perform appropriate diagnostic tests constituted deliberate indifference or that irreparable injury will result should Plaintiff not receive diagnostic tests on his back. The County Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not been in the custody or care of the MCSO since his transfer to ODOC custody in December 2008, and, therefore, the County Defendants are not in a position to provide the medical testing and treatment Plaintiff seeks. As such, preliminary injunctive relief against the County Defendants would be inappropriate. LEGAL STANDARDS The Ninth Circuit recently restated the test for a temporary restraining order (TRO) as set out by the Supreme Court: 3 - OPINION AND ORDER - "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary inj unction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. H To the extent that our cases have suggested a lesser standard, they are no longer controlling, or even viable. Am. Trucking Assocs., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008». a TRO are preliminary injunction. The standards for issuance of identical H "essentially Res. Def. Council, to those for issuing a Chandler v. Williams, No. CV 08-962-ST, 2010 WL 3394675, at *1 (D. Or. Aug. 26, 2010). Ordinarily, a preliminary injunction maintains the status quo pending a final decision on the merits. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 University of Texas v. A "mandatory injunction H (1981). altering the status quo by granting, before trial, the very relief sought in the circumstances. action is appropriate See LGS Architects, Inc. only V. in extraordinary Concordia Homes of Nevada, 434 F.3d 1150, 1158 (9th Cir. 2006). DISCUSSION In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for the denial of adequate medical care, Plaintiff must prove that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-105 (1976); Lopez v. 4 - OPINION AND ORDER - Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). Prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner's serious medical needs when they deny, treatment. delay or intentionally interfere with medical Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131; Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). The indifference to medical needs must be substantial. v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990). Wood Inadequate treatment due to malpractice or even gross negligence does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. Similarly, 1131. a difference Id.; Lopez, 203 F.3d at of medical opinion between a prisoner and his treating physicians regarding the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference. Jackson, 90 F.3d at 332. Here, Plaintiff's claim that Defendants failed to provide adequate diagnostic testing for his back does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. As the Supreme Court noted in Estelle: [T]he question whether an X-ray or additional diagnostic techniques or forms of treatment is indicated is a classic example of a matter for medical judgment. A medical decision not to order an X-ray, or like measures, does not represent cruel and unusual punishment. At most, it is medical malpractice, and as such the proper forum is the state court. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 107. Plaintiff's disagreement 5 - OPINION AND ORDER - with Defendants' diagnoses and course of treatment, without more, does not support a finding of deliberate indifference on the part of Defendants. Accordingly, the facts and the law do not clearly favor the Plaintiff on his Eighth Amendment claims and an injunction changing the status quo is not warranted. CONCLUSION For these reasons the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order contained in his Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 1& /lAJ day of December, 2010. ANNA J. BROWN united States District Judge 6 - OPINION AND ORDER -
]]>
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.
