Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01239/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01239-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTER BURNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. MIRANDA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1239 CKD P

ORDER AND 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is proceeding with claims arising under the Eighth 

Amendment against nine defendants who are all current or former employees at High Desert State 

Prison (High Desert). Generally speaking, plaintiff’s remaining claims concern a lack of 

adequate accommodations for back problems experienced by plaintiff around the time he was 

transferred to High Desert on June 9, 2010.

On May 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief. He asks 

that, due to back problems, the court order defendants to house plaintiff in a cell by himself which 

does not have bunk beds. He asserts that being assigned to a lower bunk bed causes him to suffer 

pain because: 1) he cannot sit up straight because of the overhead obstruction; and 2) getting out 

of bed is difficult due to the overhead obstruction. He also claims being assigned to a lower bunk 

not only causes him pain, but exacerbates his back injuries. While plaintiff does not indicate as 

Case 2:13-cv-01239-MCE-CKD Document 74 Filed 02/09/15 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

much, the court infers that plaintiff is also alleging that his being assigned to a top bunk would 

also cause pain and further injury. 

There are several problems with plaintiff’s motion. The most significant problem is 

plaintiff does not have a claim for “permanent” injunctive relief concerning housing 

accommodations in his complaint. The relief he seeks in his complaint is monetary damages to 

compensate him for past wrongful conduct. Complt. at 10.1 Generally speaking, the court enters 

a “preliminary” injunction when action is needed before the court can issue a ruling on a request 

for a “permanent” injunction.2 Since there is no claim for “permanent” injunctive relief 

concerning conditions of confinement, there is nothing for the court to do “preliminarily.”

Furthermore, most of the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint focus on events occurring 

around the time he was transferred to High Desert, some three years before this action was filed. 

Plaintiff does not adequately describe the condition of his back,

3

the medications provided to him, 

or the accommodations provided to him4at the time his complaint or motion for preliminary 

injunction were filed. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

 

1

 The page numbers referenced are generally those assigned by the court’s electronic docketing 

system. 

2

 The first requirement for entry of a preliminary injunction is a finding by the court that the 

plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of a claim entitling the plaintiff to permanent injunctive 

relief. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 

3

 Evidence presented with defendants’ opposition suggests the pain and discomfort experienced 

by plaintiff from the time he arrived at High Desert until around the time he filed his complaint 

varied greatly. See Ds’ Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶ 48-85.

4

 It is clear from defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 30) that plaintiff has 

received extensive medical attention for his back problems while at High Desert. He also has 

received many different medications and accommodations. See e.g. Decl. of R. Miranda (ECF 

No. 42). 

Case 2:13-cv-01239-MCE-CKD Document 74 Filed 02/09/15 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

For these reasons, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied.5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 

court judge to this case; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction 

(ECF No. 25) 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 fourteen 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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 6, 2015

1

burn1239.pi

 

5

 Plaintiff’s best course of action to obtain an injunction concerning accommodations provided to 

him at High Desert for back problems may be to initiate a separate lawsuit. In a new complaint, 

plaintiff should provide detailed information about his current condition, accommodations being 

provided to him, as well as his medications. Of course, plaintiff cannot obtain relief in this course 

unless he has exhausted administrative remedies with respect to his claims. See 42 U.S.C. § 

1997e(a).

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-01239-MCE-CKD Document 74 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 3