(PC) Mario Amador Gonzalez v. Warden Soto et al, No. 1:2016cv01675 - Document 100 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that Plaintiff's 86 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order be Denied signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 03/12/2018. Referred to Judge Drozd; Objections to F&R due by 4/6/2018. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:16-cv-01675-DAD-EPG (PC) MARIO AMADOR GONZALEZ, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER BE DENIED (ECF NO. 86) Plaintiff, v. DR. SCHARFFENBERG and R.N. S. SOTO., OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS Defendants. 16 17 18 Mario Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a 20 motion requesting a temporary restraining order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) (“the Motion”) (ECF 21 No. 86). On January 12, 2018, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 88). On 22 February 12, 2018, the Court held a discovery and status conference. Among other things, the 23 Court discussed the Motion. On February 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed his reply. (ECF No. 97). 24 The Court construes the Motion as a motion for a preliminary injunction because 25 Defendants were provided with notice of the Motion, because Plaintiff himself at times refers to 26 what he is requesting as a preliminary injunction (see, e.g., ECF No. 86, p. 4), and because the 27 relief Plaintiff is seeking would more appropriately be granted through a request for a preliminary 28 injunction. 1 1 I. THE MOTION 2 According to the Motion, Plaintiff has been suffering retaliation and denial of access to 3 medical care and mental health treatment. Plaintiff alleges that on November 20, 2017, the 4 retaliation of Defendants became worse, and that Plaintiff began receiving threats to his life from 5 Defendants. 6 On November 26, 2017, Plaintiff was summoned to medical at California State Prison, 7 Los Angeles (“CSPLA”), where he was informed by CDCR Practitioner 01 that she was ordered 8 to terminate Plaintiff’s current medical regiment by Authur Blain, who had ordered her to cause 9 Plaintiff as much discomfort as possible for filing lawsuits. Plaintiff’s pain medication was then 10 discontinued, even though Plaintiff had recently undergone spinal surgery. 11 12 On December 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a CDC 7362, requesting access to serious medical care, but Defendants maliciously ignored Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff asks for a 90-day preliminary injunction requiring Plaintiff’s medication to be 13 14 reinstated. 15 Defendants argue that, while Plaintiff mentions Defendants, his request is actually 16 directed at CDCR Practitioner 01 and Authur Blain, because they are the parties who allegedly 17 inappropriately discontinued Plaintiff’s medication. As the events laid out in the Motion are 18 unrelated to the claims in this case, and as the injunction request is directed at non-parties, the 19 Motion should be denied. 20 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 21 A federal district court may issue emergency injunctive relief only if it has personal 22 jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. See Murphy Bros., 23 Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999) (noting that one “becomes a party 24 officially, and is required to take action in that capacity, only upon service of summons or other 25 authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear to 26 defend.”). The court may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before it. See, e.g., 27 Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 234-35 (1916); Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 28 719, 727-28 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (injunctive 2 1 relief must be “narrowly tailored to give only the relief to which plaintiffs are entitled”). Under 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” 3 their “officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active 4 concert or participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). 5 Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the 6 Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find that the “relief [sought] is 7 narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right, 8 and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.” 9 On the merits, “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is 10 likely to 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 in the 12 public interest.” Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Natural 13 Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that 14 irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance 15 for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). 16 III. ANALYSIS 17 The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s plight, but will recommend that the Motion be 18 denied. While the Motion alleges that Defendants are retaliating against Plaintiff, the Motion also 19 alleges that it was Authur Blain who directed CDCR Practitioner 01 to terminate Plaintiff’s then 20 current medical regiment. Neither Authur Blain nor CDCR Practitioner 01 are defendants in this 21 case. Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction over them to order them to reinstate 22 Plaintiff’s medication. 23 Additionally, this case involves a medical incident that occurred at Substance Abuse 24 Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran, and Mercy Hospital in Bakersfield, while the 25 allegations in the Motion relate to a completely separate incident regarding medical care at 26 CSPLA. 27 Defendants, Plaintiff submitted no evidence that Defendants had any involvement in the alleged 28 denial of Plaintiff’s medical care at CSPLA. Moreover, Plaintiff stated on the record at the While Plaintiff attempts to connect the incidents by alleging retaliation from 3 1 discovery and status conference that, in relation to the allegations in the Motion, Defendants did 2 not actually do anything to Plaintiff. 3 Accordingly, the Motion should be denied. 4 If Plaintiff has evidence (which can include facts that he has personal knowledge of, 5 sworn to under penalty of perjury) that he is being retaliated against because he is prosecuting this 6 lawsuit, he may bring that to the Court’s attention by filing a motion. 7 If Plaintiff believes he is being retaliated against for exercising his first amendment rights, 8 or that his medical care at CSPLA is constitutionally inadequate, he may file a separate case 9 related to that incident and request an injunction in that case. 10 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 11 As Plaintiff’s injunction request is aimed at persons who are not defendants in this case, 12 and as the incidents described in the Motion are unrelated to this case, the Motion should be 13 denied. 14 15 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Motion be DENIED. 16 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district Court 17 judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Within 18 twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of these findings and recommendations, any 19 party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 20 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 21 reply to the objections shall be served and filed within seven (7) days after service of the 22 objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 23 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 24 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 Dated: March 12, 2018 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
