Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01067/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01067-7/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JALLA SOLTANIAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:20-cv-01067-JAM-JDP (PC)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR A SCHEDULING ORDER

ECF No. 62

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED

ECF No. 48

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

Plaintiff has filed a motion for injunctive relief that asks that third-party Dr. Heather 

McCune be assigned as his primarily health care provider.

1

 ECF No. 48.

“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.” Glossip v. 

Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 876 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 

1 Plaintiff has also filed a motion asking that the court issue a scheduling order. ECF No. 

62. That motion is moot in light of the March 1, 2022, discovery and scheduling order. See ECF 

No. 65. 

Case 2:20-cv-01067-DAD-JDP Document 66 Filed 03/01/22 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

27

28

2

(2008)). “[P]laintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to 

obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 

(9th Cir. 2011). In addition to establishing irreparable harm, plaintiff must show that the 

injunctive relief sought is related to the claims in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, 

LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive

relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an 

injunction.”). A permanent injunction may be granted only after a final hearing on the merits. 

See MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Comput., Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993) (“As a general rule, 

a permanent injunction will be granted when liability has been established . . . .”).

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on prisoner 

litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases, 

“[p]reliminary injunctive relief 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). As the Ninth Circuit has previously 

observed, the PLRA places significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive 

relief to inmates, and “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts 

and to protect the bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or 

approve relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” 

Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000).

The instant motion is one of several motions for injunctive relief that plaintiff has filed. 

See ECF Nos. 6, 37, 45, 47, & 49. As with his other motions, the instant one does not address the 

Winter factors. Consequently, plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that injunctive 

relief is warranted. See Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010) (“‘An 

injunction is a matter of equitable discretion’ and is ‘an extraordinary remedy that may only be 

awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.’”) (quoting Winter, 555 

U.S. at 376, 381). Significantly, there is no basis for concluding that plaintiff will be irreparably

harmed by receiving treatment from a physician other than Dr. McCune. See Cottrell, 632 F.3d at

1131 (“Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in 

Case 2:20-cv-01067-DAD-JDP Document 66 Filed 03/01/22 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

27

28

3

order to obtain a preliminary injunction.”) (emphasis original). Furthermore, the public interest 

would not be served by this court—which lacks medical expertise—meddling in decisions best 

left to health care practitioners. Cf. White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 113 (3d Cir. 1990) (“The 

medical care of prison inmates is entrusted to prison doctors, to whose judgment and training 

courts owe substantial deference. Courts are ill-equipped to specify the medical [treatment] that 

must be provided to prison patients.”).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for a scheduling order, ECF 

No. 62, is denied as moot.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 48, 

be denied.

I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States 

District Court, Eastern District of California. The parties may, within 14 days of the service of 

these findings and recommendations, file written objections with the court. Such objections 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 

district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2022 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-01067-DAD-JDP Document 66 Filed 03/01/22 Page 3 of 3