Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02302/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02302-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM NATHANIEL WASHINGTON, No. 2:15-cv-2302-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 7).

Plaintiff is requesting the court order the California Department of Corrections to provide

plaintiff immediate medial treatment for his fractured finger. 

The legal principles applicable to requests for injunctive relief, such as a

temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, are well established. To prevail, the

moving party must show that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. See

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res.

Def. Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365 (2008)). To the extent prior Ninth Circuit cases suggest a lesser

standard by focusing solely on the possibility of irreparable harm, such cases are “no longer

1

Case 2:15-cv-02302-DAD-DMC Document 8 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 3
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

controlling, or even viable.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046,

1052 (9th Cir. 2009). Under Winter, the proper test requires a party to demonstrate: (1) he is

likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an

injunction; (3) the balance of hardships tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public

interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1127 (citing Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). In addition, the court

is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 

In this case, plaintiff has requested the court order CDCR to provide treatment. 

However, as the undersigned outlined in the screening order, plaintiff cannot maintain an action

against CDCR. Essentially, this is equivalent of asking the court to issue an order against a nonparty, which the court is unable to do.

As to the likelihood of success on the merits of plaintiff’s claims, the undersigned

has found plaintiff’s complaint deficient, and has ordered him to file an amended complaint

which sufficiently states a claim. As such, at this time there does not appear to be a high

likelihood of success on the merits. Similarly, as to the irreparable injury, plaintiff has not

provided the court with enough information to determine whether there would be irreparable

injury. A fractured finger may or may not require extensive treatment. Without more

information, the court cannot determine the extent of the damage, and whether there would be

irreparable injury. As to the balance of hardships, plaintiff offers no reason why the balance

would tip in his favor. Requiring specific treatment could be a significant hardship on the prison,

especially if the specific treatment plaintiff is requesting is not medically necessary. Finally, the

undersigned sees no public interest in requiring plaintiff be provided specific medical treatment

in this situation, where it is unclear from the record whether such treatment is medically

necessary.

/ / / 

/ / / 

2

Case 2:15-cv-02302-DAD-DMC Document 8 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, plaintiff fails to make the required showing for a temporary

restraining order at this time. His motion for such should be denied.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds plaintiff fails to make the required

showing for a temporary restraining order and recommends that his motion (Doc. 7) 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)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 

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

DATED: September 22, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:15-cv-02302-DAD-DMC Document 8 Filed 09/22/16 Page 3 of 3