Holtz v. Phillips et al, No. 4:2014cv05018 - Document 127 (E.D. Wash. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Mr. Holtzs Motion to Strike ECF No. 119 is DENIED. Mr. Holtzs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary/Prospective Relief, ECF No. 120 is DENIED. Def endant DOC shall file no later than 9/12/2014, a declaration from PAC Gregory Schaller regarding his contact or lack of contact with Mr. Holtz; Mr. Holtz may file a declaration responding to the subjects discussed by PAC Schaller no later than 9/30/2014. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Holtz v. Phillips et al Doc. 127 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 5 6 No. RONALD HOLTZ, 7 Plaintiff, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 4:CV-14-5018-EFS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER v. JOELLA PHILLIPS, Physician Assistant; PETER BECK, MSW, M-Div, Mental Health Program Manager; WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SECRETARY BERNARD WARNER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY KEVIN BOVENKAMP, DEPUTY DIRECTOR SCOTT R. FRAKES, (DOC) MANAGER/MEDICAL DIRECTOR ROY GONZALEZ, (DOC) HEALTH CARE MANAGER MARY JOE CURREY, COYOTE RIDGE CORRECTIONS CENTER, SUPERINTENDENT JEFFREY UTTEHT, HEALTH CARE MANAGER DARREN CHLIPALA, DR. B. RODRIGUEZ, PSYCHIATRIST DR. MICHAEL REZNICEK, WASHINGTON STATE PENITENTIARY, SUPERINTENDENT, STEVEN SINCLAR, MEDICAL DIRECTOR JAMES EDWARDS, DR. F. SMITH, MENTAL HEALTH PHYSICIAN MELANIE HOWARD, AMERICAN DISABILITIES SPECIALIST HOLLY DE/CAMBRE (DOC), in official and individual capacities, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER G. STEVEN HAMMOND, PH.D., 22 Defendants. 23 24 Before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff Ronald 25 Holtz: 1) Motion to Strike, ECF No. 119, and 2) Motion for Temporary 26 Restraining Order/Preliminary/Prospective Relief, ECF No. 120. Both ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 motions are opposed by Defendants. 2 relevant 3 motions. authority, the Court is After reviewing the record and fully informed and denies both 4 First, Mr. Holtz asks the Court to strike Defendants’ July 2, 5 2014 Amended Answer, ECF No. 110, because it was filed more than 6 twenty-one 7 permission. 8 Corrections Defendants (who were unserved at that time) leave to file 9 an answer within sixty days after a courtesy copy of the Complaint was 10 mailed to the Washington State Attorney General’s Office, ECF No. 68, 11 and the Amended Answer was filed within this time frame, the Court 12 denies Mr. Holtz’s Motion to Strike. 13 days after service of process, without the Court’s Because the Court previously gave the non-Department-of- Second, the Court declines to issue the requested preliminary 14 relief. 15 Department of Corrections (DOC) to 1) release him from the Intensive 16 Management Unit (IMU), 2) refrain from further retaliatory actions, 3) 17 provide him with a medical wedge, and 4) restore his release date to 18 January 26, 2015. 19 that his access to the law library and copies of legal documents has 20 been denied, his medical conditions require a medical wedge, medical 21 personnel have refused to see him, and his classification level and 22 release date have been negatively adjusted in retaliation for his 23 pursuit of his legal and medical rights. 24 Many Mr. of Holtz requests the Court require Washington State In support of these requests, Mr. Holtz declares these requests pertain to classification matters: 25 matters that do not relate to the claims asserted by Mr. Holtz in his 26 Complaint, which seeks relief for violations of his Eighth Amendment ORDER - 2 1 right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment in that Defendants 2 have been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. 3 the Court declines to address Mr. Holtz’s request that he be released 4 from the 5 dependent upon his inmate classification level. 6 Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) (recognizing that the 7 court must limit injunctive relief to matters that are before the 8 court). 9 As IMU and his release date be to the matters that pertain Accordingly, restored, actions to this that are See De Beers Consol. lawsuit, i.e., Mr. 10 Holtz’s claim that he must have a medical wedge and he has been denied 11 access to his legal materials, the prison library, and ability to make 12 legal telephone calls, the Court finds that Mr. Holtz failed to show 13 that he is entitled to this extraordinary prospective relief. 14 Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno, 747 F.3d 733, 747 (9th Cir. 15 2014) (recognizing that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary 16 remedy). 17 indicates that Mr. Holtz is seen at Stafford Creek Corrections Center 18 by Dr. Strick or another doctor as needed, and that he is seen by 19 other medical personnel on a more regular basis if he submits a kite 20 specifically requesting sick call. 21 provided a wedge, Mr. Holtz was given the opportunity to ask Sergeant 22 Slvaggi for an extra blanket to elevate his upper body. 23 Offender’s Kite, ECF No. 120-2. 24 rather than a wedge, is sufficient to prop his upper body while he 25 sleeps to reduce the symptoms he experiences from his gastroesophageal 26 reflux disease and other medical conditions. ORDER - 3 See Beginning with Mr. Holtz’s medical concerns, the record Although Mr. Holtz has yet to be July 1, 2014 Mr. Holtz disagrees that a blanket, However, a difference in 1 medical opinion regarding treatment does not amount to deliberate 2 indifference to his medical needs. 3 242 (9th Cir. 1989). The 4 Court is concerned See Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, with Mr. Holtz’s statement that PAC 5 Gregory Schaller refused to see him, ECF No. 120 at 5. 6 Dr. Steven Hammond, who is DOC’s Chief Medical Officer, advised that 7 he does not recall an incident where PAC Schaller refused to see Mr. 8 Holtz. ECF No. 126 ¶ 5. 9 for inappropriate an In response, To ensure that such an event did not occur reason, and to help ensure that Mr. Holtz 10 receives appropriate medical care, the Court requires DOC to file a 11 declaration from PAC Schaller regarding any such alleged incident. 12 This declaration shall be filed no later than September 12, 2014; Mr. 13 Holtz is given leave to file a declaration responding to the subjects 14 discussed by PAC Schaller no later than September 30, 2014. 15 assuming at this time that PAC Schaller refused to see Mr. Holtz on 16 one 17 sufficiently serious harm to his health and safety. 18 Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 19 to 20 treatment, an inmate must show deliberate indifference to serious 21 medical needs.”) (internal quotation removed)). 22 the Court denies Mr. Holtz’s request for prospective medical relief. 23 occasion, maintain In Mr. an Holtz Eighth addition, the failed to Amendment record show claim reflects that based that this on Yet, even refusal caused See Jett v. prison medical For these reasons, DOC responds in a 24 reasonable time and manner to Mr. Holtz’s many Offender’s Kites and 25 grievances. 26 requests ORDER - 4 for Mr. Holtz failed to show that DOC’s responses to his legal telephone calls impermissibly infringe on his 1 ability to pursue this lawsuit. Rather, the record reflects that on 2 May 30, 2014, DOC staff advised him that staff would place Mr. Holtz 3 at a location that he could make a legal telephone call the next day 4 at 9:00 a.m.; on June 13, 2014, Mr. Holtz was advised that he could 5 work with his unit sergeant and floor staff as outlined in the IMU 6 handbook to place legal telephone calls; on June 15, 2014, Mr. Holtz 7 was reminded to review the IMU handbook for specific directions as to 8 how to schedule a legal call; and again on June 16, 2014, Mr. Holtz 9 was reminded to read the IMU handbook at page 9 regarding placing 10 legal telephone calls. ECF No. 120-2. There is no evidence that Mr. 11 Holtz’s ability to obtain copies of legal documents or access law 12 library materials is impermissibly hindered. 13 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). 14 being denied “meaningful access to the court[].” 15 U.S. 817, 823 (1977). See Lewis v. Casey, 518 In summary, Mr. Holtz failed to show that he is Bounds v. Smith, 430 16 For the above-given reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 17 1. Mr. Holtz’s Motion to Strike, ECF No. 119, is DENIED. 18 2. Mr. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/ Preliminary/Prospective Relief, ECF No. 120, is DENIED. 19 20 Holtz’s 3. Defendant DOC shall file no later than September 12, 2014, 21 a 22 contact or lack of contact with Mr. Holtz; Mr. Holtz may 23 file a declaration responding to the subjects discussed by 24 PAC Schaller no later than September 30, 2014. 25 26 declaration IT IS SO ORDERED. from PAC Gregory Schaller his The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and forward a copy to Plaintiff and counsel. ORDER - 5 regarding 1 DATED this 28th day of August 2014. 2 _____ s/Edward F. Shea ___________ EDWARD F. SHEA Senior United States District Judge 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Q:\EFS\Civil\2014\5018.tro.strike.lc1.docx ORDER - 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.
