(PC) Williams v. Petras et al, No. 2:2019cv00605 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 03/15/21 RECOMMENDING that plaintifff's motion for a temporary restraining order be denied. Motion 35 referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 THEAUDRA CONRAD WILLIAMS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:19-cv-0605 KJM DB P v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OGNJEN PETRAS, 14 Defendant. 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 16 17 1983 against Dr. Ognjen Petras on an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim for his 18 alleged failure to treat plaintiff’s diabetic condition. Pending before the Court is a motion for 19 protective order against the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (CSATF), the 20 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and the CSTAF Medical 21 Health Care Services Department. The Court construes plaintiff’s filing as a motion for temporary 22 restraining order. 23 24 I. Legal Standard The legal standards for obtaining a temporary restraining order are essentially identical to 25 those for obtaining a preliminary injunction. See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. v. Reliant 26 Energy Servs., Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1126 (E.D. Cal. 2001); Lockheed Missile & Space 27 Co., Inc. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 887 F. Supp. 1320, 1323 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Plaintiff is informed 28 that “[a] preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy,’ 11A C. Wright, A. 1 1 Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, p. 129 (2d ed.1995) [ ] (footnotes 2 omitted); it is never awarded as of right, Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 440 (1944).” 3 Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008). “The sole purpose of a preliminary injunction is to 4 ‘preserve the status quo ante litem pending a determination of the action on the merits.’ ” Sierra 5 Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1023 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing L.A. Memorial Coliseum 6 Comm’n v. NFL, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980)); see also 11A Charles Alan Wright & 7 Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2947 (2d ed. 2010). 8 9 In evaluating the merits of a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the court considers whether the movant has shown that “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 10 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 11 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense 12 Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) 13 (quoting Winter). The propriety of a request for injunctive relief hinges on a significant threat of 14 irreparable injury that must be imminent in nature. Caribbean Marine Serv. Co. v. Baldridge, 844 15 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 16 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). 17 Additionally, in cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any 18 preliminary injunction “must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the 19 harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to 20 correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 21 Finally, a district court may not issue preliminary injunctive relief without primary 22 jurisdiction over the underlying cause of action. Sires v. State of Washington, 314 F.2d 883, 884 23 (9th Cir. 1963). Additionally, an injunction against individuals who are not parties to the action is 24 strongly disfavored. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969). 25 26 II. Analysis Plaintiff moves for an order directing three entities—CSATF, CDCR, and the CSATF 27 Medical Health Care Services Department—to stop retaliating against him for having filed this 28 lawsuit. Plaintiff claims that after he initiated this case, the supervisors at Medical Health Care 2 1 Services falsified plaintiff’s medical records to indicate that plaintiff tested positive for Covid-19. 2 As a result of the positive test result, plaintiff was placed in isolation, whereupon he then received 3 a letter from his primary care provider indicating that he had tested negative for the virus. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because it seeks relief that is unrelated to the claim underlying this case. As the Ninth Circuit has made clear, [T]here must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint. This requires a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth in the underlying complaint itself. The relationship between the preliminary injunction and the underlying complaint is sufficiently strong where the preliminary injunction would grant “relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” De Beers Consol. Mines, 325 U.S. at 220. Absent that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks authority to grant the relief requested. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). 12 In the foregoing decision, the Ninth Circuit relied on and approved of Devose v. Harrington, 42 13 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994), in which the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a prisoner’s 14 request for an injunction against retaliatory conduct by prison officials after he filed his lawsuit 15 (such as trumped-up disciplinary charges and requiring him to perform work beyond his 16 capabilities), because the retaliation issue was not related to the denial of medical care issue 17 presented by the complaint. As Devose clarified, the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to 18 preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on 19 the merits of the complaint, and thus, although assertions of new misconduct set forth in a motion 20 for a temporary restraining order or an injunction might support additional claims against a 21 defendant, they do not support granting injunctive relief. Devose, 42 F.3d at 471; see also Pacific 22 Radiation Oncology, 810 F.3d at 636 (adopting the rule of Devose and noting that it illustrates 23 24 “the exactitude by which courts evaluate whether a motion for injunctive relief is related to the underlying claim”); Adair v. England, 193 F. Supp. 2d 196, 200 (D.D.C. 2002) (“when a motion 25 for a preliminary injunction ... raises issues different from those presented in the complaint, the 26 court has no jurisdiction over the motion”). 27 28 3 Here, plaintiff’s motion complains that three entities (all non-parties) have falsified his 1 2 medical records and held him in isolation in retaliation for plaintiff’s initiation of this action. 3 None of these issues are alleged in the pleading; indeed, these events occurred after this action 4 was filed. The required sufficient nexus does not exist between the matters set forth in the motion 5 and the claims alleged in the pleading. In addition, plaintiff’s motion should denied because it is directed to non-parties over 6 7 8 9 10 11 whom the Court does not have jurisdiction. Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 110. III. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order be denied. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 13 fourteen days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 14 written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 15 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 16 within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 17 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 18 Dated: March 15, 2021 19 20 21 22 23 /DLB7 DB/Inbox/Substantive/will0605.tro 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.
