(PC) Lopez v. Shiesha et al, No. 1:2012cv00076 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 16 Motion to Supplement the First Amended Complaint and Denying, without Prejudice, Injunctive Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/21/2012. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Lopez v. Shiesha et al Doc. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 CLAY EDWARD LOPEZ, 12 CASE No. 1:12-cv-0076-MJS (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 (ECF Nos. 16) S. SHIESHA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 / 19 20 21 22 23 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Clay Edward Lopez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed on January 17, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 24 25 26 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (Consent, ECF No. 5.) 27 -1- Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 On July 3, 2012, Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. (Order Dismiss. Compl., ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 16, 2012. (First Am. Compl., ECF No. 15.) The 4 5 6 Court screened the First Amended Complaint and found a cognizable Eighth Amendment inadequate medical care claim against Defendant Ross and a cognizable 7 First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Baker, but no other claims. On 8 December 3, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Langham, 9 Thompson, Gonzalez, Stainer, and the Does, be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff also 10 was ordered to either file an amended complaint curing identified deficiencies in his 11 12 13 claim against Defendant Shiesha or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on his cognizable claims. (Order Dismiss. First Am. Compl., ECF No. 17.) Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s November 26, 2012 motion seeking to 14 15 supplement the First Amended Complaint with allegations and exhibits and for 16 injunctive relief. (Mot. to Supp., ECF No. 16.) 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 A. 19 Supplemental Pleading Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend his 20 21 pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 22 Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court, or by written consent of the 23 adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ . P. 24 15(a). 25 26 “Rule 15(a) is liberal and leave to amend shall be given when justice so 27 -2- 1 requires.” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2 2006), quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Amended pleadings must be complete within 3 themselves without reference to another pleading. Partial amendments are not 4 permissible. Local Rule 220. 5 B. 6 Injunctive Relief Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy, 7 8 never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22 9 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 10 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 11 preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is 12 13 14 in the public interest.” Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009), quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. An injunction may only be 15 awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 16 22. 17 18 Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), which requires that the Court find the “relief 19 [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of 20 21 22 the federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the federal right.” 23 24 25 Injunctive relief should be used “sparingly, and only . . . in clear and plain case[s].” Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 (1976). III. ANALYSIS 26 Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the First Amended Complaint is not properly 27 -3- 1 before the Court, and his request for injunctive relief does not meet legal prerequisites 2 for such relief. 3 4 A. Motion to Supplement Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the First Amended Complaint is not properly 5 6 7 before the Court. The Court screened the First Amended Complaint and, finding certain cognizable 8 claims, offered Plaintiff the option of either filing an amended pleading or proceeding on 9 his cognizable claims. He was not given the option to supplement any existing pleading 10 11 and he has identified no legal or factual grounds that might justify amendment of the existing First Amended Complaint. His supplement does not address the deficiencies in 12 13 14 his claims against Defendat Shiesha. In any event, the proposed amendment is unacceptable because it is not a 15 pleading complete in and of itself, but instead refers to and is dependent upon a 16 separate underlying pleading. Local Rule 220. Every pleading must contain “a short and 17 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. 18 Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of 19 the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not 20 21 suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing Bell 22 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 23 factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial 24 plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed 25 misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are 26 not. Id. at 1949–50. 27 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 Additionally, Plaintiff may not “supplement” as to events occurring prior to the date of the pleading to be supplemented. Fed. R. Civ. P 15(d). Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff simply wishes to add exhibits to his existing First Amended Complaint, they need not, and rarely should be, made part of a complaint. They may not, in any event, be filed separately as Plaintiff proposes to do. “The court 6 cannot serve as a repository for the parties' evidence (i.e., prison or medical records, 7 8 9 witness affidavits, etc.). The parties may not file evidence with the court until the course of litigation brings the evidence into question (for example, on a motion for summary 10 judgment, at trial, or when requested by the court).” (First Informational Order, ECF No. 11 3 at 4:2-6.) 12 B. Injunctive Relief 13 1. No Showing of Likelihood of Success on the Merits 14 15 Plaintiff alleges that he will be released from custody on or about December 17, 16 2012 (Mot. to Supp. at 10), that Prison medical staff have prescribed medications 17 including morphine for treatment of his various serious medical needs (Id. at 5-6), and 18 that a correctional officer told him prison medical staff have an alleged “system” and 19 “underground rule of practice” of not giving prisoners controlled narcotics upon release 20 from custody. (Mot. to Supp. at 2:1-17.) He seeks an injunction directing the “medical 21 22 23 24 25 26 department to reconsider” such “system” and “practice”, so he can manage his pain levels upon his release. (Id. at 2:17-18.) Plaintiff has failed at this early stage of the litigation to allege facts demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff has yet to plead a cognizable claim relating to a potential failure to provide a supply of prescription medication upon his 27 -5- 1 release. (Order Dismiss. First Am. Compl at 9:10-11:16.) Though the obligation to 2 provide constitutionally adequate medical care including required medication does not 3 end at the prison gate, See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 4 1999), Plaintiff’s claim to date “is purely speculative and does not state a claim to relief 5 6 7 8 that is plausible on its face.” (Order Dismiss. First Am. Compl. at 10:4-6.) Defendants have not yet appeared. Plaintiff’s claim for medication upon release remains in dispute. Similarly, his instant motion fails to demonstrate a denial or delay in treatment of 9 a serious medical need, or threat thereof. “[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim 10 based on prison medical treatment, an inmate must show ‘deliberate indifference to 11 serious medical needs.’ ” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006), quoting 12 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The two prong test for deliberate 13 14 indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “ ‘a serious medical need’ by demonstrating 15 that ‘failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the 16 unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’ ” and (2) “the defendant's response to the 17 need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096, quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 18 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992). Deliberate indifference is shown by “a purposeful 19 act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need, and harm caused 20 21 22 by the indifference.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096, citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060. Plaintiff fails to explain what medications, validly prescribed beyond his release 23 date, he requests and for what period of time, that he has asked such medications be 24 prescribed for his use during the transition from prison to private care, that his request 25 26 was denied or that any response was given and what it was. The instant motion is speculative and unsupported by any fact or cognizable claim in this matter. 27 -6- 1 Plaintiff also fails to specify the individuals against whom he seeks injunctive 2 relief. Generalized injunctive relief against “the medical department” is not permissible. 3 The PLRA states that: 4 [T]he court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds 5 6 7 that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to 8 correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to 9 any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system 10 11 caused by the relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Similar requirements apply with respect to temporary 12 restraining orders and preliminary injunctive relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 13 14 15 2. No Irreparable Harm Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. See City of Los Angeles v. 16 Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101–102 (1983) (plaintiff must show “real and immediate” threat of 17 injury, and “past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or 18 controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present, 19 adverse effects.”) 20 21 Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting a real and immediate threat of harm. He fails 22 to sufficiently demonstrate any “system” or “practice” of denying narcotic medication 23 upon release. Even if he had, nothing before the Court suggests a real and immediate 24 threat of injury to Plaintiff. The instant motion does not demonstrate any medical 25 indifference or suggest a risk arising therefrom, but rather is premised in conjecture and 26 27 -7- 1 surmise. His underlying pleading likewise fails to sufficiently allege any such risk of 2 harm. 3 3. 4 Balance of Equities and Public Interest Not in Plaintiff’s Favor The absence of a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, and of 5 6 7 irreparable harm leaves nothing to tip the balance of equities in Plaintiff's favor, or suggest that an injunction would be in the public interest. In any event, absent the existence of exceptional circumstances not present here, 8 9 the Court will not intervene in the day-to-day management of prisons. See e.g., Overton 10 v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003) (prison officials entitled to substantial deference); 11 Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995) (disapproving the involvement of federal 12 courts in the day-to-day-management of prisons.) 13 Plaintiff's allegations do not support an entitlement to injunctive relief. 14 15 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 16 Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the First Amended Complaint is not properly 17 before the Court. His request for injunctive relief is unsupported by facts which would 18 enable the Court to find that he is in need of and entitled to such relief. 19 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the 20 21 First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 16) is DENIED, and injunctive relief requested 22 therein is DENIED without prejudice. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: ci4d6 27 December 21, 2012 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -8-
]]>
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.
