United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [ECF
Shannon Sorrells is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff declined United States magistrate judge
jurisdiction, and this matter was therefore referred to a
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
23, 2016, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion requesting the
court issue an order directing jail officials to provide
Plaintiff with medical treatment. The Court construes
Plaintiff’s motion as a request for a preliminary
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citation omitted).
“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.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An
injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the
plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering
a request for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is
bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it
have before it an actual case or controversy. City of
L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge
Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and
State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does
not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no
power to hear the matter in question. Id.
“[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and
redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s
case-or-controversy requirement, and the party invoking
federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its
existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better
Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998). Requests for
prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. §
3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which
requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is
narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct
the violation of the Federal right, and is the least
intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the
15, 2016, the Court found that Plaintiff’s first
amended complaint stated a cognizable claim for deliberate
indifference against Defendants Captain Horton and Melhoff
only, and Plaintiff was granted the opportunity to amend the
complaint again or proceed against only Captain Horton and
Malhoff. (ECF No. 22.) Thus, no Defendant has yet been served
with the operative complaint or filed a response, and the
Court lacks the jurisdiction to issue the orders sought by
Plaintiff. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S.
488, 493 (2009); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d
1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009).
assuming that the Court has jurisdiction to issue
Plaintiff’s requested relief, he has not met his burden
as the moving party. As stated in the Court’s screening
order, “[c]laims by pretrial detainees [such as
Plaintiff here] are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment
Due Process Clause, rather than the Eighth Amendment [, which
applies to prisoners in custody pursuant to a judgment of
conviction].” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124,
1128 (9th Cir. 1998). Where a plaintiff alleges inadequate
medical care, however, “pretrial detainees’
rights under the Fourteenth Amendment are comparable to
prisoners’ rights under the Eighth Amendment, [so] we
apply the same standards.” Id.
the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution
entitles Plaintiff to medical care, the Eighth Amendment is
violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate
indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs.
Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012),
overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v.
Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014);
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir.
2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.
2006). Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need
by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition could
result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and
wanton infliction of pain, ” and (2) that “the
defendant’s response to the need was deliberately
indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122
(citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). Deliberate
indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or
failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible
medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.”
Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439
F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of
subjective recklessness, which entails more than ordinary
lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation
and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at
motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court order the Fresno
County jail to provide him medical treatment for his pain.
Despite Plaintiff’s opinions as to what the proper
medical treatment is, there is no indication that Plaintiff
is in immediate need of the treatment he seeks and is under
significant threat of irreparable harm without the
medication. Thus, Plaintiff has not made the showing required
to meet his burden as the party moving for preliminary
it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for a
court order to receive medical treatment must be DENIED.
Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)
days after being served with this Findings and
Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with
the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections
to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to
file objections within the specified time may result in the