Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02044/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02044-0/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Anthony Johnson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of 

the United States Magistrate Judge on January 11, 2013. Local Rule 302.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed on April 

3, 2013. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling prison officials to provide him with sufficient pain 

medication for his chronic right knee and thigh pain.

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. Winter v. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 9 (2008). For each form of relief sought in 

federal court, Plaintiff must establish standing. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 

(2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). This requires Plaintiff to show 

that he is under threat of suffering an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; the threat must 

be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to challenged 

ANTHONY JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DR. SISODIA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02044-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[ECF No. 9]

Case 1:12-cv-02044-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 3
2

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

conduct of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial decision will prevent or redress 

the injury. Summers, 555 U.S. at 493; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Further, any award of equitable 

relief is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which provides in relevant part, AProspective 

relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to 

correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant 

or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no 

further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means 

necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.@ 18 U.S.C. ' 3626(a)(1)(A). 

In an order issued concurrently herewith, the Court has found that Plaintiff states a cognizable 

claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Defendants Dr. Sisodia and Dr. 

Edgar Clark; however, Plaintiff did not state a claim against any of the other named Defendants and he 

was given the opportunity to proceed against Defendants Dr. Sisodia and Dr. Clark or file an amended 

complaint. 

At this stage in the action, the Court cannot make a finding that Plaintiff is likely to prevail on 

the merits of his claim that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. While 

Plaintiff alleges that he was denied pain medication following his knee surgery and, given the liberal 

standard for pro se litigants, a claim has been found, the Court notes that the exhibits attached to the 

instant motion reveal that he has been seen by doctors and prison staff has reviewed his medical file. 

Plaintiff’s disagreement with certain Defendant’s treatment decision and desire for stronger pain 

medication are not alone sufficient to suggest he is under any real and immediate threat of injury or 

that the balancing of equities and public interest weighs in his favor. Absent the existence of 

exceptional circumstances not present here, the Court will not intervene in the day-to-day management 

of prisons. See, e.g., Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003) (prison officials entitled to 

substantial deference); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 482-483 (1995) (disapproving the 

involvement of federal courts in the day-to-day management of prisons). The facts and evidence 

///

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-02044-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 12/02/13 Page 2 of 3
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

presently before the Court do not support the entitlement to injunctive relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2013 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02044-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 12/02/13 Page 3 of 3