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.

Jackson v. Davis

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 6, 2016

GEORGE JACKSON, Plaintiff,
v.
R. DAVIS, et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ECF NOS. 2, 8, 10]

          DENNIS L. BECK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff George Jackson ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         This 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.

         The 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.

         Now pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction, filed on February 2, 2016, May 9, 2016, and June 9, 2016.

         Plaintiff 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 accommodations.

         Plaintiff 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.

         On 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.

         On May 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended request for injunctive relief seeking the same relief set forth in the February 2, 2016, motion.

         On June 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.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Legal Standard

         A 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.

         An even 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 ...


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.