United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR
COURT ORDERED MEDICAL TREATMENT (DOC. NOS. 11 AND
13)
Plaintiff
Shannon Sorrells, a pretrial detainee at Fresno County Jail,
is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff declined to consent to
magistrate judge jurisdiction over this action for all
purposes, and the matter was therefore referred to a United
States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. (Doc. No. 5.)
On
February 11, 2016, plaintiff filed an ex parte motion seeking
a court order requiring that the Fresno County Jail provide
him Oxycodone for his pain. (Doc. No. 11.) Therein, plaintiff
claims that three doctors have prescribed him pain medication
in the form of 30 mg oxycodone IR tablets to alleviate his
pain and that his taking of acetaminophen should be avoided
due to his liver disease of Hepatitis “C.”
(Id. at 1-2.) According to plaintiff, the staff at
Corizon Health, the healthcare provider for Fresno County
Jail, is providing him with Tylenol #4, instead of the
prescribed oxycodone. (Id. at 2.)
On
February 12, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge filed
findings and recommendations recommending that
plaintiff’s motion for a court order requiring that he
be provided Oxycodone for his pain be denied. (Doc. No. 13.)
The magistrate judge reasoned that plaintiff’s
complaint in this action had just been dismissed with leave
to amend so there was no actual case or controversy before
the court as necessary for the court to have jurisdiction to
issue the order sought by plaintiff. (Id. at 2.)
Additionally, the magistrate judge reasoned that plaintiff
had not made the required showing that the prison officials
were acting with deliberate indifference to his serious
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
(Id. at 2-3.) Specifically, the magistrate judge
stated “[d]espite 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.” (Id. at 3.) The findings and
recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice
that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days.
(Id.)
Plaintiff
filed objections on February 29, 2016. (Doc. No. 16.)
Therein, he objected that the medication currently being
prescribed to him is not comparable to that listed in his
medical records. (Id. at 1.) He states that
defendants have given him Tylenol #4, which contains
acetaminophen that is causing irreparable damage to his
liver. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff also objected that he
“had to have that particular medication to alleviate
his seizures, ” but that “[d]efendants constantly
allow pain medications and seizure and psych medications to
lapse.” (Id. at 2-4.)
On
April 6, 2016, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint in
this action. (Doc. No. 20.) His first claim in that amended
complaint alleges violation of his constitutional right to
adequate medical care as a result of his seizure medication
being canceled. In addition, plaintiff alleges: “I also
have severe trauma to my back for which I take oxycodone in a
pure form, without acetaminophen, because I also have Hep. C,
a liver disease that acetaminophen does irreparable harm
to.” (Id. at 6.) However, later in his amended
complaint plaintiff alleges:
This response to these grievances also states that I’m
currently receiving treatment for Hep. C. This is a lie.
Medical records included within, will show that this is a
lie, and it isn’t even listed as an illness I have, nor
is there a prescription contained therein for this deadly
disease.
(Id. at 14.)
In
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo
review of this case. Because plaintiff has now filed an
amended complaint, there is an actual case or controversy
before the court now that did not exist when the magistrate
judge issued the findings and recommendations.
Legal
Standard
“[I]njunctive
relief [is] an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded
upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such
relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). The legal principles
applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a
temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are
well established. “The proper legal standard for
preliminary injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate
‘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.’” Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky,
586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter,
555 U.S. at 20); see also Center for Food Safety v.
Vilsack, 636 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“After Winter, ‘plaintiffs must
establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible,
in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.”); Am.
Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559
F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). The Ninth Circuit has also
held that “[a] preliminary injunction is appropriate
when a plaintiff demonstrates...that serious questions going
to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips
sharply in the plaintiff's favor.” Alliance for
Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th
Cir. 2011) (quoting Lands Council v. McNair, 537
F.3d 981, 97 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)).[1]
The
Local Rules of this court impose additional requirements on
parties moving for a temporary restraining order. First, the
court will consider whether the moving party could have
sought relief by a noticed motion for a preliminary
injunctive at an earlier date without the necessity of
seeking last-minute relief by motion for a temporary
restraining order. See Local Rule 65-231(b). Second,
the moving party must provide specific documents to the court
in support of the requested temporary restraining order.
See Local Rule 65-231(c).
Finally,
in cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of their
confinement, any temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction must 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 in question. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3626(a)(2).
Analysis
Because
plaintiff’s ex parte motion for an order requiring that
he receive medical treatment seeks injunctive relief for a
period of time longer, it is properly characterized as a
motion for preliminary injunction. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 65(b)(2) (Temporary restraining orders are generally
allowed for no more than 10 days); see also Voth v.
Mills, Civil No. 09-423-HA, 2009 WL 1159596, at *1 (D.
Or. April 27, 2009). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65(a), “[n]o preliminary injunction shall be
issued without notice to the adverse party.” Similarly,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) prohibits the entry of
a temporary restraining order without notice to the adverse
party absent a showing of “the efforts, if any, which
have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting
the claim that notice should not be required.”
Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for an ...