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.

Jones v. Paramo

United States District Court, S.D. California

November 6, 2019

GERALD JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
PARAMO, et al, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

          Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge

         On October 2, 2019, Gerald Jones (“Plaintiff') filed this motion for a preliminary injunction for prevention of “imminent danger or death” based on alleged First Amendment violations in retaliation for the underlying amended complaint filed on April 25, 2019. For the reasons discussed below, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction be DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff alleges several injuries as bases for his claim of retaliation. First, plaintiff alleges he was sent to administrative segregation (“ad-seg”) for an incident that “he was not responsible for” and that the correctional officers told him “our hands are tied.” He also alleges that the investigation of this incident should have taken two weeks and not the two-month period that he was in ad-seg. Plaintiff alleges his time in solitary was retaliation for his underlying civil rights complaint.

         Second, he alleges that while in ad-seg, he did not have access to legal materials necessary for his pending case before this Court.

         Third, he alleges that Officer Torras did not sign his property inventory list in accordance with prison procedure, citing this example to demonstrate that the officers “do what they want to do.”

         Fourth, he alleges that Officer Torras “stole” his medical supplies and personal property and has a “strong history of crimes against black inmates.”

         Fifth, he alleges that the medical staff took his medical supplies and altered his treatment regimen to include a reduction in morphine and gabapentin doses as retaliation. He identifies supervisor Sanchez and Dr. Casian, but it is not clear how they retaliated against him. He also alleges that his current medical condition leaves him vulnerable and “force[s] [him] to suffer an extreme and atrocious level of debilitating pain and distress at a terrible level beyond plaintiff['s] ability to endure that has reached a breaking point further causing prolong[ed] psychological torture” amounting to retaliation.

         Sixth, he alleges that a package has been waiting in a warehouse for six weeks and that the staff are delaying delivery “just to harass and retaliate” against him.

         Lastly, he alleges that “the next step” is for the staff to “send two to three inmate[s] [or] inmate police at [him] to harm or kill [him] or badly injur[e]” him.

         Plaintiff now asks the Court for a preliminary injunction against persons, other than the parties asserted in the complaint, without specifying exactly what orders or relief pursuant to his original complaint he seeks, in the interests of preventing irreparable harm.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         “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.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as a matter of right. . . . In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Id. at 24 (internal citations and quotations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief. Id. at 22.

         Requests for preliminary injunctive relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which requires that the Court's 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 that harm.” Section 3626 further requires balancing of interests regarding “public safety and operation of the criminal justice system” and has a statutory default ...


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.