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. 13)
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
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.) On August 29, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a), and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim. (Order, ECF No. 20.) Thus, this action is currently proceeding against Defendants Enenmoh, Faria, LeMay, Byers and Oneyeje for allegedly violating the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. (Id.) Defendants Enenmoh, Faria, LeMay, and Oneyeje have since been served and filed an Answer. (ECF Nos. 33 & 35.)*fn1
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed on April 20, 2011. (Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction, directing that the Court order Defendants to provide Plaintiff and other inmates with "all needed medical attention and meet all medical needs." (Id. at 2.) In conjunction with his Motion, Plaintiff has also filed a Memorandum of Law. (Pl.'s Mem. of Law, ECF No. 14.) Defendants Faria, LeMay, Onyeje, and Enenmoh (collectively, "Defendants") have filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion. (Defs.' Op, ECF No. 44.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230, the time in which Plaintiff could have filed a reply has passed without Plaintiff having done so. Plaintiff's Motion is now before the Court.
In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges: On or about July 26, 2010, he was transferred to California State Prison in Corcoran, California ("SATF") where he is presently housed. (Am. Compl. at 7.) Plaintiff has been a Type 2 insulin-dependent diabetic since 2001. (Id. at 5.) He suffers from both hypo- and hyper-glycemia, i.e. low and high blood sugar levels. (Id.) On or about September 27, 2010, he was determined, without any medical testing, to no longer be diabetic. (Id. at 7-8.) Nurse LeMay instructed the custody officers in Plaintiff's dorm to confiscate all of Plaintiff's diabetes-related medications. (Id. at 9.) Nurse LeMay acted on orders from Physician's Assistant Byers, who in turn acted on orders from the Chief Medical Officer. (Id. at 6-9.) Testing for diabetes in Plaintiff was terminated in November 2010. Plaintiff has not received any medical treatment for his diabetes since September 27, 2010. (Id. at 9.)
In the Motion, Plaintiff contends that the medical needs of him and other inmates on SATF Yard-B have not been met for more than twenty weeks. (Mot. at 1.) The denial of that care constitutes deliberate indifference to a serious harm. (Id.) Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendants to provide Plaintiff and other inmates with the medical care that they require. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that he received no medical treatment from September 27, 2010 to February 26, 2011.*fn2 (Pl.'s Mem. of Law at 2.) Plaintiff contends he was threatened with harm if he tried to go to the medical offices for treatment, and that he was denied treatment from various other sources. (Id.) As a result, Plaintiff has suffered from headaches, blurred eyes, temporary blindness, constipation, lethargy, and depression. (Id. at 3.)
In their opposition, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has received appropriate treatment for his medical condition. (Defs.' Op. at 3.) Defendants submit a declaration from Defendant Enenmoh detailing the medical care Plaintiff received at SATF. (Enenmoh Dec., ECF No. 44-1) Defendants contend that Plaintiff's treatment was only altered, not stopped, because insulin and diabetic snacks were inappropriate and potentially harmful for Plaintiff. (Defs.' Op. at 4; Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 7-9.) Defendants contend that SATF medical staff determined that Plaintiff's diabetes could be controlled with diet and exercise. (Id.) Plaintiff's medication was removed from his cell for direct distribution to him because medical staff determined that he was hoarding his medications instead of taking them as directed. (Defs.' Op. at 4; Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 10.) SATF staff directly gave him medication in place of insulin. (Id.; Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 4.) He was given Metformin to control his diabetes and a number of other medications. (Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 4-5.) Plaintiff was not precluded from obtaining medical treatment. (Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 6.) SATF medical staff regularly monitor Plaintiff's blood sugar levels. (Id.)
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 intrusive means necessary to correct the harm." 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(2).
The Court find that, at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the legal prerequisites for injunctive relief. As noted, to succeed on such a motion, Plaintiff 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 ...