United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ECF NOS.
2, 8, 10]
L. BECK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
George Jackson ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
action is proceeding on Plaintiff's complaint against
Defendants: Federal Medical Receiver J. Clark Kelso; VSP
Chief Medical Executive P. Virk; Deputy Director of Policy
and Risk Management Services J. Lewis; VSP Chief Physician
and Surgeon N. Malakkla; VSP Medical Doctor W. Zhang; VSP
Nurse Practitioner Patricia Johnson; VSP Nurse Practitioner
D. Maddox; California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation ("CDCR") Secretary J. Beard; VSP
Warden R. Davis; VSP Warden R. Fisher, Jr.; VSP Associate
Warden D. Roberts; VSP Associate Warden J. Porras; CDCR
Captain J. Waybright; CDCR Correctional Lieutenants A.
Musleh, J. Alvara, J. Anderson, and R. Warren; and CDCR
Correctional Sergeants M. Fondren and J. Stockbridge. By
separate order the Court has screened the complaint and
determined that Plaintiff stated a claim under the Eighth
Amendment against Defendants Warren and Musleh.
Court found no other cognizable claims against the remaining
Defendants. Plaintiff was granted leave to notify the Court
of his willingness to proceed with the cognizable claims, or
file an amended complaint.
pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for
preliminary injunction, filed on February 2, 2016, May 9,
2016, and June 9, 2016.
states he suffers from Raynaud's Disease which is a
circulatory disorder caused by insufficient blood supply to
the hands and feet resulting in Cyanosis, numbness, and pain.
Exposure to cold, drafts, or fans exacerbates the condition
and causes Plaintiff extreme pain to the hands and feet and
aggravates Plaintiff's chronic back problems. Plaintiff
states he was diagnosed with Raynaud's Disease in 2010
and examining doctors prescribed certain accommodations
including: single-cell housing on an upper tier level, and no
exposure to cold air, drafts, or fans. These restrictions
were stipulated to in a case before the Amador County
Superior Court by Plaintiff and Federal Receiver J. Clark
Kelso. Thereafter, Plaintiff was provided the prescribed
states he was moved to an eight-man dormitory on November 16,
2014, where he has been housed ever since. He complains that
this housing violates the medically prescribed plan of
treatment and causes him to be exposed to cold air, drafts,
and fans. As a result, he claims he suffers from pain to his
extremities on a daily basis.
February 2, 2016, Plaintiff requested a preliminary
injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Plaintiff seeks immediate cell living, lower bunk,
top-tier only, in the "B" section of A-3 Facility
Housing Unit. He further requests that he be single-celled,
or double-celled with a compatible cellmate with
compatibility to be determined by Plaintiff. Plaintiff also
asks that California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation ("CDCR") be directed to purchase and
provide Plaintiff with a portable electronic baseboard
heater. Further, Plaintiff asks that he be examined by a
qualified back specialist and rheumatologist in order that a
course of treatment be established. Finally, Plaintiff
requests an order directed to Defendant Musleh and his
officers, agents, employers and other persons acting in
concert or participation with them restraining them from
harassing, retaliating, or making Plaintiff wait in the cold
for up to one hour to and from work.
9, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended request for injunctive
relief seeking the same relief set forth in the February 2,
9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request for an injunction to stop
or rescind the inmate transfer order which CDCR has initiated
at Valley State Prison.
preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary
remedy." Winter v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376, 172
L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (internal citation omitted). When a court
considers whether to grant a motion for a preliminary
injunction, it balances "the competing claims of injury,
. . . the effect on each party of the granting or withholding
of the requested relief, . . . the public consequences in
employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction, " and
Plaintiff's likelihood of success. Id. at 374,
376-77 (quoting Amoco Prod. Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S.
531, 542, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987));
Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312, 102
S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). In order to succeed on a
motion for a preliminary injunction, the 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." Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374.
more stringent standard is applied where mandatory, as
opposed to prohibitory, preliminary relief is sought. The
Ninth Circuit has noted that although the same general
principles inform the court's analysis, "where a
party seeks mandatory preliminary relief that goes well
beyond maintaining the status quo pendente lite,
courts should be extremely cautious about issuing a
preliminary injunction." Martin v. International
Olympic Committee, 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir.1984).
Thus, an award of mandatory preliminary relief is not to be
granted unless both the facts and the law clearly favor the
moving party and extreme or very ...