Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03966/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03966-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY LEWIS HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD BIRDSONG,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03966-YGR (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER 

BRIEFING ON MOTION FOR TRO; 

AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”),

filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged a claim of deliberate 

indifference to medical needs against Defendant SVSP Physician Edward Birdsong, M.D., 

stemming from severe complications from treatment Plaintiff received from February and April 

2013. Dkt. 1 at 3. On January 6, 2016, the Court ordered service of process on Defendant. Dkt. 

9. Service of process has been accomplished as to Defendant. Defendant has requested a ninetyday extension of time in which to file a dispositive motion in this action.

On April 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order 

(“TRO”) in which he contended that he had an appointment at the SVSP Correctional Treatment 

Center on March 29, 2016, but he refused to be examined when he found the appointment was 

with Defendant. Dkt. 16 at 1-2. Plaintiff further alleges that he needs to be examined for 

“medical issues resultive [sic] of the prior medical treatment by Defendant Birdsong.” Id. at 1. 

However, Plaintiff claims that he “should not be denied further medical treatment proximate of 

refusing healthcare services from Defendant Birdsong.” Id. at 2. On May 9, 2016, Defendant 

filed a response to the motion for a TRO. Dkt. 17. However, Defendant’s response is not 

supported with adequate factual documentation. Defendant is directed to file further briefing on

the motion for a TRO, and the parties shall abide by the briefing schedule outlined below.

Case 4:15-cv-03966-YGR Document 18 Filed 05/11/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In light of the foregoing, the Court now orders the following:

1. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order, Defendant shall file 

further briefing on the motion for a TRO. The supplemental response to the motion for a TRO 

shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and all papers filed with the Court shall be promptly served on 

Plaintiff. Defendant is specifically directed to inform the Court of the medical care being offered 

to Plaintiff in light of his refusal to be treated by Defendant. Plaintiff may file a reply to 

Defendant’s supplemental response within twenty-eight (28) days of the date that response is 

filed. Plaintiff’s reply should also be supported by adequate factual documentation and should 

demonstrate why he satisfies the following standard: 

The standard for issuing a TRO is similar to that required for a preliminary injunction. See

Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981). 

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the 

merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of preliminary 

relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in the moving party’s favor; and (4) that an injunction is 

in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A 

preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear 

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief[.]” Id. at 22. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires further that preliminary injunctions relating to 

prison conditions “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). The court must give “substantial weight to any adverse impact on 

public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief.” 18 

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

2. Defendant’s request for an extension of time to file a motion for summary 

judgment or other dispositive motion is GRANTED. Dkt. 15. Defendant shall file the motion no 

later than ninety (90) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive 

motion shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendant no later than twenty-eight (28) days

Case 4:15-cv-03966-YGR Document 18 Filed 05/11/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

after the date that Defendant’s motion is filed. Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than 

fourteen (14) days after the date Plaintiff’s opposition is filed.

3. This Order terminates Docket No. 15.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

May 11, 2016

Case 4:15-cv-03966-YGR Document 18 Filed 05/11/16 Page 3 of 3