(PC) O'Neal v. California Department of Corrections, et al., No. 1:2009cv01552 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER DENYING Miscellaneous Motions re 10 Motion to Compel, 12 Motion for Injunction, 14 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/10/2011. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
(PC) O'Neal v. California Department of Corrections, et al. Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DONNIE RAY O’NEAL, JR., 11 Plaintiff, 12 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01552-MJS (PC) ORDER DENYING MOTIONS v. MISCELLANEOUS 13 14 CAL IF OR NI A DEPARTMENT CORRECTIONS, et al., 15 OF (ECF Nos. 10, 12, & 14) Defendants. / 16 17 ORDER 18 19 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 20 Plaintiff Donnie Ray O’Neal, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 21 in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his 22 23 Complaint on September 2, 2009. (ECF No. 1.) He consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on October 8, 2009. (ECF No. 6.) No other parties have appeared in this 24 25 26 action. The Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff now has two motions pending before the Court: a Motion to Compel; a 27 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 Motion for Immediate Injunction; and a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF Nos. 10, 12, & 14.) The Court will address each in turn. II. MOTION TO COMPEL 4 5 On March 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendants to Respond to 6 Original Medical Complaint. In the Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court order the 7 medical healthcare department at Corcoran State Prison to respond to the medical 8 complaint he filed in February 2009 and which remained unanswered as of the date of 9 10 Plaintiff’s motion. The lack of response as of March 2010 is documented in attachments to the Motion, but one attachment states that a response was due by April 2010. (ECF No. 11 12 10, p. 14.) Instead of waiting, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel in March. To the extent Plaintiff intended this as a motion to compel, it is premature. 13 14 As of this date, the Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s Complaint, authorized service of 15 it, or authorized discovery. The Court can not compel discovery when discovery has not 16 yet begun. 17 This Motion may be treated as a request for injunctive relief, i.e., a request for an 18 19 20 order directing Defendant’s to follow prison guidelines and answer his grievance. However, at this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff fails to meet the legal prerequisites for injunctive 21 relief. To succeed on such a motion, he must establish that he is likely to succeed on the 22 merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 23 the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. 24 Plaintiff has not met all of these prerequisites. While it may well be that Plaintiff will be able 25 to show entitlement to a response to his medical complaint, he has not shown irreparable 26 27 injury from a delay in the response or that the equities or public interest dictate a more 2 1 2 3 immediate response. Accordingly, this portion of Plaintiff’s motion must be DENIED. III. MOTION FOR INJUNCTION On May 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Immediate Injunction against 4 5 Defendants California Department of Corrections and Enenmoh seeking the reinstatement 6 of a pain management regimen and a special diet. Plaintiff states that he had been on 7 pain management for the previous four or five years and on special high fiber diet for 8 chronic diverticulosis and I.B.S., but that Defendant Enenmoh stopped both in retaliation 9 10 against Plaintiff. These actions caused Plaintiff to suffer unnecessary pain. “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 11 12 13 Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 14 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 15 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in 16 the public interest.” Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon 17 a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis 18 19 20 added). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, in considering a request for 21 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary 22 matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 23 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church 24 and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or 25 controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Id. “[The] triad of 26 27 injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s 3 1 2 3 case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998). 4 5 6 The standard for a permanent injunction is essentially the same as for a preliminary injunction, with the exception that the plaintiff must show actual success, rather than a 7 likelihood of success. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 8 12 (1987). However, the Ninth Circuit has recently revived the “serious questions” sliding 9 scale test, and ruled that a preliminary injunction may be appropriate when a plaintiff 10 demonstrates serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tips 11 12 13 sharply in plaintiff’s favor. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 622 F.3d 1045, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2010). 14 In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, the Prison 15 Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires that any preliminary injunction “must be narrowly 16 drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires 17 preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.” 18 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Moreover, where “a plaintiff seeks a mandatory preliminary injunction 19 20 that goes beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite, ‘courts should be extremely 21 cautious’ about issuing a preliminary injunction and should not grant such relief unless the 22 facts and law clearly favor the plaintiff.” Committee of Central American Refugees v. 23 I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 1441 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Martin v. International Olympic 24 Committee, 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984)). 25 26 27 Plaintiff has not met the above-enumerated prerequisites for injunctive relieve here 4 1 2 3 either. The Court will assume that Plaintiff’s asserted ongoing pain constitutes irreparable harm. Plaintiff does not address the balance of equities or the public interest components, but the Court sees little unfairness to the Defendant or adverse effect to the public in 4 5 6 providing Plaintiff pain medication . The deficiency here arises from Plainitiff’s failure to argue, much less demonstrate, that he will succeed on the merits of his case. In fact, 7 Plaintiff provides little enlightenment regarding his underlying claims. He does not state 8 what he means by “pain management”, why pain management is necessary, why it has 9 been stopped, or what his diet was or what it has been changed to. He alleges the 10 changes were motivated by retaliation, but does not state how or why he believes this to 11 12 13 be true. Most significantly, the Court has no way of devining from the information available at this stage of the proceedings whether Plaintiff is being denied necessary and reasonably 14 available medical care or whether he simply disagrees with the treating physicians as to 15 an appropriate course of treatment. 16 17 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Immediate Injunction be DENIED at this time. If as the case proceed,Plaintiff feels that he can meet 18 the legal standards described herein, the Court will consider a renewed request. 19 20 IV. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 21 Also on May 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider Motion for Appointment 22 of Counsel. In support of his request, he states that his case is complex, that he has other 23 inmates help him with his pleadings, that he is a mental health patient on medication for 24 manic depression, that he often expresses a wish to “lay down” due to the retaliation 25 against him by Defendants, and that he is suffering pain and cruel and unusual 26 27 punishment. 5 1 2 3 Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). The Local Rules provide that when filing a motion for 4 5 6 7 reconsideration, a party show, among other things, “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j)(3). 8 Plaintiff has requested appointment of counsel twice in this case with the exact 9 same motion and has been denied each time. (ECF Nos. 8, 9, 13, & 15.) In this Motion 10 to Reconsider, Plaintiff has not raised any new or different facts nor does he state any 11 12 13 other grounds to sustain the motion. The Court reiterates that it has not found in this case the exceptional circumstances 14 which might justify appointment of counsel.1 15 proceedings, the Court cannot make a determination that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on 16 the merits, and based on a review of the record in this case, the Court does not find that 17 Moreover, at this early stage in the Plaintiff cannot adequately articulate his claims. In the event the Court finds that the 18 Complaint states a cognizable claim, the Court may entertain such request. 19 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED; 22 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction is DENIED; and 23 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action; however, in certain exceptional circum stances the Court m ay request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). In determ ining whether “exceptional circum stances exist, the district court m ust evaluate both the likelihood of success of the m erits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claim s pro se in light of the com plexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (Internal quotations and citations om itted). 6 1 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: 6 ci4d6 January 10, 2011 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7

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.