(PC)Huskey v. Ahlin et al, No. 1:2012cv00569 - Document 53 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injuctive Relief be Denied re 27 , 28 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 07/11/14. Referred to Judge Ishii. Ten-Day Objection Deadline/Five-Day Response Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KENNETH R. HUSKEY, Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 Case No. 1:12-cv-00569-AWI-SKO (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED PAM AHLIN, et al., (Docs. 27 and 28) Defendants. 14 TEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE/FIVEDAY RESPONSE DEADLINE 15 16 _____________________________________/ 17 18 I. Background 19 Plaintiff Kenneth R. Huskey, a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 20 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 12, 2012. Plaintiff is allergic to 21 synthetic material, and this action is proceeding against Defendants Ahlin, Brown, Craig, and 22 Young (“Defendants”) for failing to ensure that Plaintiff=s medical need for cotton clothing was 23 met, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States 24 Constitution. Plaintiff’s claim arises out of his conditions of confinement at Coalinga State 25 Hospital (“CSH”) in Coalinga, California, where he is serving a civil commitment. 26 On October 21, 2013, and October 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed motions seeking a court order 27 mandating that CSH officials replace his lost and/or stolen cotton clothing, allow him to purchase 28 his own cotton clothing, and cease all retaliatory action against him. (Docs. 27, 28.) Following 1 their appearances in the action and the issuance of an order granting them an extension of time to 2 respond, Defendants filed an opposition on March 28, 2014. (Doc. 47.) Plaintiff did not file a 3 reply, and the motions have been submitted upon the record without oral argument. Local Rule 4 230(l). 5 II. Legal Standard 6 For each form of relief sought in federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Summers 7 v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493, 129 S.Ct. 1142 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 8 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). This requires Plaintiff to show that he is under threat of suffering 9 an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not 10 conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged conduct of the defendant; and 11 it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress the injury. Summers, 555 12 U.S. at 493 (quotation marks and citation omitted); Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 13 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter 14 v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008) (citation 15 omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed 16 on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that 17 the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 18 555 U.S. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that 19 the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 20 III. Discussion 21 Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s request for cotton clothing is now moot. Defendants 22 submit evidence that as of March 13, 2014, Plaintiff had received all of the cotton items he 23 requested, with the exception of cotton pants. (Doc. 47, Def. Opp., Vaughn Dec., ¶3.) At that 24 time, Plaintiff was wearing his last pair of cotton pants. (Id.) On March 17, 2014, Plaintiff 25 represented that his last pair of cotton pants was now gone. (Id., ¶5.) However, on March 21, 26 2014, Plaintiff was provided with three pairs of cotton Dickies pants. (Id., Adams Dec., ¶8.) 27 Plaintiff did not file a reply to Defendants’ opposition; and in his opposition to 28 Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Plaintiff attested, under penalty 2 1 of perjury, that as of March 22, 2014, he had been provided with cotton clothing. (Doc. 48, Pl. 2 Opp., ¶10, p. 3.) 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an order mandating that he be provided with cotton 4 clothing or be allowed to purchase his own is now moot. 5 With respect to Plaintiff’s request for an order prohibiting further retaliation, “those who 6 seek to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold requirement imposed 7 by Article III of the Constitution by alleging an actual case or controversy.” City of Los Angeles v. 8 Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S.Ct. 1660 (1983) (citations omitted). “Abstract injury is not 9 enough.” Lyons, 461 U.S. at 101. “[P]laintiff must show that he has sustained or is immediately 10 in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged official conduct and the 11 injury or threat of injury must be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. 12 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Furthermore, the purpose of a preliminary injunction is 13 to preserve the status quo and the rights of the parties until a final judgment issues. U.S. Phillips 14 Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citation 15 omitted). This case arises from Defendants’ alleged failure to provide Plaintiff with medically 16 necessary cotton clothing. The Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order prohibiting speculative 17 future conduct, which is dispositive of the matter, but additionally, Plaintiff’s request for such an 18 order would necessarily exceed the narrow purpose served by a preliminary injunction. 19 IV. Recommendation 20 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motions for 21 preliminary injunctive relief be DENIED. 22 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 23 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten 24 (10) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 25 written objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned 26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 27 objections must be filed within five (5) days from the date of service of the objections. Local 28 Rule 304(d). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 3 1 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 2 1991). 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 11, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 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 28 4

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.