Holtz v. Phillips et al, No. 4:2014cv05018 - Document 83 (E.D. Wash. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AND DIRECTING DOC TO FILE ADDITIONAL MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFF AND ORDERING DELIVERY OF PLAINTIFF'S LEGAL MATERIALS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF TRANSFER; denying as moot 7 Motion for Prospective Temporary Injunctive Relief; denying as moot 30 Motion for an In-Person Hearing; denying 49 Motion for TRO; denying as moot 61 Motion Supplementing Request for an In-Person Hearing. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (CV, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Holtz v. Phillips et al Doc. 83 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 3 No. RONALD HOLTZ, CV-14-5018-EFS 4 Plaintiff, 5 v. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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., 20 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AND DIRECTING DOC TO FILE ADDITIONAL MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFF AND ORDERING DELIVERY OF PLAINTIFF’S LEGAL MATERIALS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF TRANSFER Defendants. 21 22 On May 20, 2014, a telephonic scheduling conference was held, 23 during which four motions held in abeyance were discussed and a trial 24 date was set. 25 Defendant Plaintiff Ronald Holtz participated pro se, while Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) was 26 ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 represented by Joseph 2 Edwards from the Attorney General of Washington’s Office. Previously, during a motion hearing on May 6, 2014, the Court 3 4 heard argument on a variety of motions. 5 issued an Order holding four motions in abeyance pending the Court’s 6 review of documentation submitted by DOC regarding the transfer of 7 Plaintiff 8 Washington. The Court wanted to ensure that Plaintiff’s transfer was 9 not an act of bad faith by DOC before ruling on certain matters. to finds the that Washington DOC did On May 8, 2014, the Court Corrections not act in Center bad (WCC) faith in in Shelton, The 10 Court transferring 11 Plaintiff to WCC and, for the reasons that follow below, the Court 12 denies the four motions held in abeyance. 13 to submit new documentation with regard to the Plaintiff’s need for a 14 medical wedge. 15 his required legal materials within thirty days of his transfer to 16 WCC. 17 I. The Court also directs DOC The Court also orders DOC to provide Plaintiff with PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO COMPEL TRANSFER TO MONROE CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX 18 During the hearing, the parties first discussed Plaintiff’s 19 request that the Court compel his transfer to the Monroe Correctional 20 Complex (MCC). This request arose from Plaintiff’s Motion for 21 Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 49. The Court sought 22 clarification regarding what Plaintiff was requesting in this motion 23 during the May 6, 2014 hearing, and interpreted the motion for a 24 temporary restraining order to be a motion to compel Plaintiff’s 25 transfer to MCC. 26 ORDER - 2 Because the documentation submitted by DOC contains 1 no indicia of bad faith or malicious intent, the Court has no basis to 2 channel Plaintiff to MCC rather than WCC. It 3 is well settled that “an inmate has no justifiable 4 expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular prison 5 within a State.” 6 the 7 complete 8 facilities “[w]henever in its judgment the best interests of the state 9 or the welfare of any prisoner confined in any penal institution will State of Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983). Washington discretionary has granted authority the to Secretary transfer of And Corrections prisoners 10 be better served by his or her transfer.” 11 solid foundation on which to proceed, this Court will not interfere 12 with DOC’s lawful use of its discretionary powers. 13 RCW § 72.68.010. among Without a Rather than assert any factual basis for his request, Plaintiff 14 points to the unknown. 15 suffer worse circumstances, be subject to more retaliation.” 16 49-1 at 1. 17 assumes the existing record before the Court establishes the need for 18 the Court to intervene in his transfer. 19 does not establish that he faces any imminent harm because of this 20 transfer. 21 proves there was foul play or punitive intent with regard to the 22 transfer decision. 23 its discretionary authority. 24 The He states “no one knows what awaits me, will I ECF No. In attempting to compel his transfer to MCC, Plaintiff But the Plaintiff’s motion Nor does the Plaintiff provide any factual record that Court He offers no indication that DOC has overstepped recognizes that Plaintiff has minimal access to 25 internal DOC documentation regarding his transfer, so he has limited 26 means to establish malicious intent or bad faith behind the transfer. ORDER - 3 1 However, the Court accounted for this inequity by ordering DOC to 2 submit a documentary record regarding Plaintiff’s impending transfer 3 to 4 combination with the pre-existing record. 5 Court finds that the documentation merely describes an administrative 6 process 7 programs at WCC, while not qualifying for certain programs at MCC; the 8 documentation gives no appearance of a bad faith transfer. WCC. The whereby Rather, 9 Court the reviewed the this Plaintiff factual record, was record ECF Nos. 75 & 76, in Based on this review, the deemed before to the qualify Court for certain suggests that 10 Plaintiff’s transfer away from the Washington State Penitentiary (WSP) 11 in Walla Walla is appropriate. 12 and thoroughly read the record; it is clear that Plaintiff desires a 13 transfer in order to be closer to an HIV specialist. 14 clear 15 Plaintiff will be closer to an HIV specialist, and he will no longer 16 be burdened by the myriad troubles allegedly tied to his incarceration 17 at WSP. 18 request under ECF No. 49 is denied. 19 II. that Plaintiff does The Court has listened to Plaintiff not wish to remain at It is equally WSP. At WCC, The Court will not restrain Plaintiff’s transfer, and his PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF AND OTHER MOTIONS TIED TO THIS REQUEST 1. 20 Because the transfer will proceed as planned, another matter in 21 abeyance, Plaintiff’s Motion for Prospective Temporary Injunctive 22 Relief, ECF No. 7, is likewise denied. The motion makes two general requests: HIV 23 1) a transfer for better treatment and 2) more 24 responsive treatment of Plaintiff’s other medical problems. To obtain 25 preliminary 26 ORDER - 4 relief, Plaintiff must establish 1) he is likely to 1 succeed on the merits, 2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in 2 the absence of preliminary relief, 3) the balance of equities tips in 3 his favor, and 4) preliminary relief is in the public interest. 4 Winter, 555 U.S. 7, 20. 5 approach, these elements are “balanced, so that a stronger showing of 6 one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the 7 Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). 8 Plaintiff does not establish any of these elements in the record, and 9 the Court sees no indication that the Plaintiff would be able to See Under the Ninth Circuit’s “sliding scale” The 10 establish any of these elements in a motion hearing. But even if the 11 elements were established by Plaintiff, the Court sees no need to hold 12 a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary relief because the 13 Court finds that Plaintiff’s transfer to WCC renders moot the relief 14 requested in this motion. 15 the true nature of the relief requested. 16 A. However, there is some disagreement over A Transfer for Better HIV Treatment 17 In Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 18 49, he states that the relief requested has always been a transfer to 19 MCC with “disease control doctor D. Lopez-DeCastilla and [the] mental 20 health transitional programs [available at MCC].” 21 In the May 6, 2014 hearing, Plaintiff also stated that MCC has been 22 the object of his requested relief all along. 23 as to the narrowness of his requested relief are not supported by the 24 record. 25 an option. 26 transfer to “Western Washington” – presumably any facility in western ORDER - 5 ECF No. 49-1 at 1. However, his assertions Plaintiff has always noted the Monroe Correctional Complex as ECF No. 7. But Plaintiff has more generally sought a 1 Washington – in order to receive more frequent care from Dr. Lara 2 Strick, Plaintiff’s disease control specialist who is based in western 3 Washington. 4 to present a moving target with regard to the relief requested in his 5 Motion for Prospective Temporary Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 7. 6 reviewing the record, the Court finds that it is reasonable to accept 7 the 8 facility as the focus of Plaintiff’s motion. more general Even 9 ECF No. 3 at 31; ECF No. 7-1 at 3. though request for Plaintiff a does transfer not to receive Thus, Plaintiff seems a western the exact After Washington relief he 10 desires, the Court finds that a transfer to WCC achieves the more 11 general and more important goal of moving Plaintiff away from WSP to a 12 facility where he will receive more regular treatment from an HIV 13 specialist. 14 visits WSP once every three months. 15 Furthermore, as discussed supra, the Court will not interfere with 16 DOC’s lawful use of its discretionary powers; Plaintiff does not have 17 a right to be transferred to a facility of his choosing. 18 U.S. at 245. 19 Temporary Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 7, that requests a transfer for 20 better HIV treatment is denied as moot because it is being fulfilled. 21 B. 22 Dr. Strick makes monthly visits to WCC, while she only ECF No. 66 at 3; ECF No. 22. Olim, 461 Thus, the prong of Plaintiff’s Motion for Prospective The Need for Better Medical Treatment in General Ancillary to Plaintiff’s request for a transfer is Plaintiff’s 23 request for 24 allegedly poor healthcare treatment. 25 order better, more responsive healthcare treatment. 26 will be treated by different healthcare providers at WCC, it is not ORDER - 6 removal from immediate physical harm relating to his He generally asks the Court to Because Plaintiff 1 clear whether 2 treatment will persist. 3 staff. With new staff, the specific harm complained of will no longer 4 be issue. 5 institutional 6 responsiveness to Plaintiff’s medical needs. 7 may be present at WCC, it is unclear whether this general harm will 8 persist in a new facility with new administration and new programs. 9 The Court has no basis for ordering more responsive treatment because 10 there is no record of treatment at WCC. In the eyes of the Court, the 11 record that does exist with regard to Plaintiff’s treatment neither 12 establishes specific harm resulting from poor healthcare treatment nor 13 general harm resulting from DOC indifference. 14 Court finds that the record reflects regular and timely responses by 15 DOC to the Plaintiff’s medical needs. 16 on 17 Prospective Temporary Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 7, requests the Court 18 to order more responsive medical treatment, the motion is denied as 19 moot. an phantom the alleged harm. Plaintiff arising To of harm from poor healthcare The alleged harm came under the care of WSP However, harm threat the from also DOC extent complains indifference of a and general lack of While this general harm To the contrary, the The Court cannot grant relief that Plaintiff’s Motion for 20 Beyond the general concerns, Plaintiff makes a very specific 21 request with regard to his healthcare treatment; he requests a medical 22 wedge for use while sleeping. 23 minimizes damage to his esophagus resulting from acid and indigestion 24 issues. 25 medical staff and issued by the prison property department; it appears 26 to be a process with numerous administrative hurdles. ORDER - 7 This wedge props him up and allegedly According to the record, a wedge must be prescribed by prison The WSP medical 1 staff determined that multiple blankets could serve as a replacement 2 wedge. 3 imminent danger from having blankets in the place of a wedge. 4 this element of requested relief enters the same haze of uncertainty 5 as the general request for better healthcare treatment – where there 6 is no clear danger, there is no clear relief from that danger. The record before the Court does not sufficiently establish Thus, 7 However, because the record reflects that Plaintiff has been 8 prescribed a medical wedge in the past, the Court is concerned that 9 Plaintiff may indeed need access to this medical instrument. As a 10 result, the Court orders DOC to submit documentation detailing: 1) the 11 medications Plaintiff is receiving for his esophageal problems, 2) the 12 frequency of the medication use, 3) whether Plaintiff will have access 13 to a medical wedge at WCC, and 4) if the Plaintiff will not have 14 access to a medical wedge at WCC, the reasoning behind the denial of 15 access. 16 June 19, 2014. This documentation must be submitted no later than Thursday, Ultimately, 17 Plaintiff’s transfer either grants his requested 18 relief or disarms any alleged threats of immediate harm from poor 19 medical treatment. 20 the only alleged threat that is remotely established in the record – 21 Plaintiff’s lack of access to a medical wedge. 22 will be evaluated by the Court in camera once DOC submits the ordered 23 documentation, and the Court will determine whether an Order directing 24 DOC to provide Plaintiff with a wedge is necessary. Accordingly, the 25 Court for 26 Temporary Injunctive Relief, ECF No. 7, as moot. denies ORDER - 8 the Furthermore, the Court has ordered DOC to explain entirety of Plaintiff’s This alleged threat Motion Prospective Additionally, 1 because the motion for preliminary relief is 2 denied and there will be no hearing on this motion, the Court need not 3 determine whether the hearing should be in-person. 4 Motion/Request for an In-Person Hearing, ECF No. 30, and Plaintiff’s 5 Motion Supplementing Plaintiff’s Motion/Notice of Request for an In- 6 Person Hearing, ECF No. 61, are denied as moot. Thus, Plaintiff’s 7 Finally, because of concerns over Plaintiff’s access to legal 8 materials that sparked extensive motions practice earlier in this 9 case, the Court wants to ensure that Plaintiff will have access to his 10 legal 11 Plaintiff 12 phonebook, 13 Plaintiff’s legal proceedings. 14 Plaintiff with his required legal materials and his phonebook within 15 thirty days of his transfer to WCC. 16 17 materials also within voiced which a his reasonable distress allegedly contains time over after loosing his transfer. access information to his pertinent to Thus, the Court orders DOC to provide A separate Scheduling Order will be issued with regard to the trial date and deadlines associated thereto. 18 19 For the above-given reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 20 1. Plaintiff’s request that the Court compel his transfer to MCC 21 arising from the Court’s interpretation of Plaintiff’s Motion 22 for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 49, is DENIED. 23 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Prospective Temporary Injunctive 24 Relief, ECF No. 7, Plaintiff’s Motion/Request for an In-Person 25 Hearing, 26 ORDER - 9 ECF No. 30, and Plaintiff’s Motion Supplementing 1 Plaintiff’s Motion/Notice of Request for an In-Person Hearing, 2 ECF No. 61, are DENIED AS MOOT. 3 3. By Thursday, June 19, 2014, DOC shall submit documentation 4 detailing: 1) the medications Plaintiff is receiving for his 5 esophageal problems, 2) the frequency of the medication use, 6 3) whether Plaintiff will have access to a medical wedge at 7 WCC, and 4) if the Plaintiff will not have access to a medical 8 wedge at WCC, the reasoning behind the denial of access. 9 10 11 12 13 4. DOC shall provide Plaintiff with his required legal materials and his phonebook within thirty days of his transfer to WCC. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and forward a copy to Plaintiff and counsel. DATED this 26th day of May 2014. 14 ______ s/Edward F. Shea _____________ EDWARD F. SHEA SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Q:\EFS\Civil\2014\5018.denyPIandTRO.lc1.docx ORDER - 10
]]>
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.
