Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Donald B. Williams v. the State of California

July 26, 2011

DONALD B. WILLIAMS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN EMERGENCY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 2)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Donald B. Williams ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff originally filed this action on February 2, 2011. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On March 17, 2011, the Court issued an Order Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with Leave to Amend, and Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint. (Order, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on April 20, 2011. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 15.) The Court has not yet screened the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), and no other parties have appeared in this action.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for an Emergency Injunction filed on February 2, 2011. (Mot., ECF No. 2.) It appears that Plaintiff is requesting a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. Plaintiff requests an "Emergency Injunction Order" directing that he be given his medications, including the medicines he needs for treatment of his diabetes. (Id.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on April 20, 2011, requesting similar relief. (Mot., ECF No. 13.) The Court will deal with this Motion in a separate order.

II. ARGUMENT

In the Motion, Plaintiff complains:

He is currently housed at the California State Prison in Corcoran, California ("SATF") and he is not receiving any medical care for his diabetes. Plaintiff has been a Type 2 insulin-dependent diabetic since 2001. He suffers from both hypo- and hyper-glycemia, i.e. low and high blood sugar levels. From approximately January 2010 to May 2010, Plaintiff was housed at two different correctional institutions where he was treated with insulin and provided with diabetic snacks.

On or about July 26, 2010, Plaintiff was transferred to SATF, where he is presently housed. Plaintiff was initially treated at SATF with insulin and diabetic snacks. On or about September 27, 2010, Plaintiff was determined, without any medical testing, to no longer be diabetic. Nurse LeMay instructed the custody officers in Plaintiff's dorm to confiscate all of Plaintiff's diabetes-related medications. Nurse LeMay acted on orders from Physician's Assistant Byers, who in turn acted on orders from the Chief Medical Officer.*fn1 All testing for diabetes was terminated in November 2010.

Thus, Plaintiff has not received any medical treatment for his diabetes since September 27, 2010. His previously prescribed medicines have been confiscated. Plaintiff is concerned about his health and alleges that he needs his diabetic medicines to "sustain

[l]ife" and to avoid reaching a "critical stage". He requests an "Emergency Injunction Order" directing that he be provided with his necessary medicines.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

The Court interprets Plaintiff's Petition as a request for a preliminary injunction and/or, more appropriately given the status of this case, a request for a temporary restraining order. Regardless, the standards, and the Court's analysis and conclusion, below, are effectively the same for each.

Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an "extraordinary remedy, never awarded as of right." Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is 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).

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires that any preliminary injunction "be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.