Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01658-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NO. CIV.S-03-1658 LKK DAD PS

ex rel. GENE L. ROGERS, M.D.,

CONSOLIDATED CASES

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/ FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ex rel. GENE L. ROGERS, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

These consolidated cases came before the court on January

20, 2006, for hearing on plaintiff’s “motion for order --

injunction,” which the undersigned has construed as a motion for a

preliminary injunction. Plaintiff Gene L. Rogers, M.D., proceeding

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 199 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1 In this regard, plaintiff confusingly cites to Ex Parte Young

and its progeny, which stand for the general principle that the

2

pro se, appeared on his own behalf. Clair I. Van Dam appeared on

behalf of defendant. Having considered all written materials

submitted in connection with the motion, and after hearing oral

argument, the undersigned will recommend that the motion be denied.

The legal principles applicable to a request for injunctive

relief are well-established. To prevail, the moving party must show

either a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of

irreparable injury, or that serious questions are raised and the

balance of hardships tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See

Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir.

1997); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374,

1376 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations represent two points on a

sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable

injury shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under any

formulation of the test, plaintiff must demonstrate that there exists

a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of

a significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the court need

not reach the issue of likelihood of success on the merits. Id.

As an initial matter, the court notes that plaintiff’s

motion for preliminary injunction is technically deficient in that it

fails to comply with the provisions of Local Rule 65-231. 

Specifically, plaintiff’s short memorandum of points and authorities

filed December 16, 2005, misapprehends the legal standards applicable

to his request1 and does not address all pertinent legal issues, such

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 199 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit brought in federal court

seeking to prospectively enjoin a state official from violating

federal law. See Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-60 (1908).

2 At this time the court does not reach defendant’s contention

that plaintiff lacks standing to enforce the provisions of the

PRWORA. That issue is raised in defendant’s pending motion for

summary judgment.

3

as the questions of likelihood of success on the merits; the

possibility of irreparable injury; and the balance of hardships. As

such, plaintiff’s moving papers do not include a brief “on all

relevant legal issues to be presented by the motion” as required by

Local Rule 65-231(d)(2)(i). The proposed order submitted by

plaintiff fails to include a provision for bond as required by Local

Rule 65-231(d)(2)(iii). These deficiencies alone justify denying

plaintiff’s motion.

Additionally, and most importantly, plaintiff has failed to

make a showing entitling him to the requested relief. The primary

claim in these consolidated qui tam actions is that the County of

Sacramento is violating the federal Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) by providing non-emergent

health care to undocumented immigrants under the County Medically

Indigent Services Program. In the instant motion, plaintiff seeks “a

prospective injunction for relief rendering unqualified aliens

ineligible for non-emergency, elective, means tested local medical

benefits of the Sacramento County Medically Indigent Program.”2

(Proposed Order filed December 16, 2005, at 2.)

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a significant threat of

irreparable injury. While plaintiff’s moving papers contain little

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 199 Filed 01/24/06 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3 Pursuant to court order, any reply argument was to be made at

oral argument. (See Order filed January 9, 2006.) Therefore, the

collection of documents filed by plaintiff in reply are unauthorized. 

Also, those documents were filed on January 17, 2006, just three days

before the hearing, and therefore are untimely even if a regular

briefing scheduled applied. Nonetheless, defendant having been

granted an extension of time to file its opposition, the court has

considered plaintiff’s reply filings. 

4

discussion regarding irreparable injury, plaintiff has made some

attempt to address the issue in his reply brief, presumably in

response to defendant raising the matter in its opposition. In his

reply brief,3 plaintiff asserts that denying the requested relief

will result in the continued unlawful expenditure of public revenues;

expose plaintiff to personal fiscal liability; and increase the costs

associated with this litigation. However, even if plaintiff were to

demonstrate that these somewhat vague injuries were likely to be

suffered, which he has not, the financial nature of the alleged harm

weighs against a claim of irreparable injury. See Cotter v. Desert

Palace, Inc., 880 F.2d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[i]njuries

compensable in monetary damages are "not normally considered

irreparable.")(quoting Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com. v. National

Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir. 1980)).

The other alleged injuries offered by plaintiff also miss

the mark. In this regard, plaintiff argues that denying the

requested relief will put the public health at risk. For example,

plaintiff argues that undocumented immigrants are lured to the United

States, at least in part, by the prospect of health care provided by 

defendants and other local government entities. Plaintiff claims

that those undocumented immigrants carry unique infectious diseases,

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 199 Filed 01/24/06 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4 Plaintiff’s assertions in this regard also are directly

contradicted by the declaration of Keith A. Andrews, M.D., a

physician responsible for the oversight and supervision of the County

of Sacramento’s medical care programs, including the County Medically

Indigent Services Program, which is the medical program of last

resort for residents of Sacramento County. Dr. Andrews’ declaration

was submitted by defendant and explains that the requested injunctive

relief would actually create a “risk of increased spread of public

health related infectious diseases, as well as loss of life and limb

for such patients resulting from failure to treat their medical

conditions. These patients have no alternative place to receive the

necessary medical care.” (Decl. of Keith A. Andrews, M.D., ¶ 6.)

5

such as “resistant [tuberculosis] from foreign nations,” which only

expose the general public to undue risks. Plaintiff further argues

that swelling numbers of undocumented immigrants at defendant’s

facilities result in the denial of health care to those citizens who

are legitimately entitled to it. Plaintiff obviously feels strongly

about his views on immigration, but his arguments here are conclusory

and unsupported. His assertions regarding the public health do not

constitute a demonstration of immediate threatened harm, particularly

where, as here, plaintiff seeks to enjoin the conduct of a local

government. See Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 549, 557

(9th Cir. 1990) (when seeking injunctive relief against government

actions which allegedly violate the law, "the injury or threat of

injury must be both 'real and immediate,' not 'conjectural' or

'hypothetical'") (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-02

(1983)(citations omitted)).4

The court also is unpersuaded by plaintiff’s assertions

that denying the instant motion will cause him unnecessary stress and

aggravate his personal health issues. Such an injury is simply not

the kind contemplated by the applicable legal standards. Nor is the

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 199 Filed 01/24/06 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

court persuaded by the contention that plaintiff and like-minded

county employees will, if his motion is denied, live in fear of

losing their jobs in retaliation for expressing their views regarding

providing health care to undocumented immigrants. The court

perceives no connection between a denial of the requested relief and

such a scenario.

Further, plaintiff initiated the first of these

consolidated actions in 2003. The instant motion was filed earlier

this year (i.e., well over two years later) and only after defendant

moved for summary judgment, which motion is pending. Such a delay in

seeking a preliminary injunction also weighs against a claim of

irreparable injury. See Oakland Tribune, Inc., 762 F.2d at 1377

(“Plaintiff's long delay before seeking a preliminary injunction

implies a lack of urgency and irreparable harm.").

Finally, plaintiff has clearly not demonstrated a

likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. Indeed, plaintiff

has offered no clear discussion of his claims nor explained how he

might prevail. The closest plaintiff comes in this regard is his

identification of certain witnesses and the expressed intention to

conduct additional discovery to support his claims. Unfortunately,

having moved for a preliminary injunction, the time for plaintiff to

demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits is now. 

Plaintiff’s assertion that additional discovery may allow him to do

so at some point in the future is therefore unavailing.

/////

/////

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 199 Filed 01/24/06 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

7

Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth above, the

court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s “motion for order --

injunction” be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations." The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 23, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1\orders.prose\rogers1658.pi.f&r

Case 2:03-cv-01658-LKK -DAD Document 199 Filed 01/24/06 Page 7 of 7