Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-03244/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-03244-0/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

JOSEPH ANTHONY GEORGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-03244-SI 

ORDER DENYING TRO, DENYING 

REQUEST FOR COUNSEL, AND 

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 4

Joseph Anthony George, a prisoner at the Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is now before the court for review pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff’s requests for a temporary restraining order and for appointment of 

counsel also are before the court for review.

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations of Complaint

The complaint concerns prison officials’ efforts to keep prisoners safe in the era of Covid19, a disease caused by the novel coronavirus (also known as SARS-CoV-2). Plaintiff sues the 

Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the Chief 

Medical Executive of the CDCR, the Warden at Pelican Bay, and the Chief Medical Executive at 

Pelican Bay. He alleges that his constitutional rights have been violated because defendants “have 

no plan [for] prevention, treatment, medical staff or equipment” for Covid-19. Docket No. 1 at 4.

Plaintiff alleges that the coronavirus has caused a global pandemic and will spread rapidly 

if it gets into the prison population. Id. at 3. He therefore believes that it is imperative that the 

CDCR stay vigilant and prepare for it. Id. 

Case 3:20-cv-03244-SI Document 9 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 9
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

Plaintiff further alleges that the CDCR has no tests, continues to transfer inmates, and allows 

staff members to return from vacation without being required to provide a negative test for the 

coronavirus. “There is no hospital at [Pelican Bay] and no plan to treat inmates if an outbreak 

occurs. Because this is a rural area with only 3 cases of the coronavirus, they are very lax.” Id. at 

2. Nonetheless, plaintiff does not want to be transferred to another prison; because there are very 

few cases of Covid-19 in the rural area in which Pelican Bay is located, transferring him “to a 

different prison with no vaccine or medication, equipment and medical training [will put] plaintiff 

at a greater and [imminent] danger of getting infected and dying.” Id. at 4.

Plaintiff alleges that he has heart disease and lung damage and, therefore, will die if infected 

with the coronavirus. Id. at 2. (According to the CDCR’s inmate locator website, plaintiff is 52 

years old, has been in custody since 2018, and has a parole eligibility date in 2027. 

https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov.)

Plaintiff is now at Pelican Bay serving a term in the security housing unit (SHU) that expires 

on August 15, 2020. Id. at 4. Plaintiff allegedly passed through four other prisons en route to 

Pelican Bay in March. During the period from March 16 through 19, he allegedly went from 

Donovan to Chino to North Kern to Tracy to Pelican Bay. Id. at 3. He alleges that, during transit, 

no one was wearing a mask or taking temperatures. He further alleges that, once he arrived at 

Pelican Bay, he was placed on a two-week quarantine during which his temperature was checked, 

although checked by medical staff who were not wearing masks 99% of the time. Id. He does not 

allege that he has contracted Covid-19 – and his complaint is dated more than six weeks after he 

arrived at Pelican Bay.

Plaintiff alleges that he filed a regular inmate appeal and an emergency inmate appeal 

requesting that prison officials take certain steps (e.g., stop any transfer until the inmate tests 

negative, require that masks be worn by inmates and staff, and prevent his transfer to any other 

prison). Id. at 4.

Case 3:20-cv-03244-SI Document 9 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 9
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

B. Motion For Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary 

injunction seeking an order (1) requiring defendants “to create a comprehensive practice to treat 

coronavirus infected inmates and staff that includes test kits, requiring staff to test negative before 

returning from vacation, train staff and purchase ventilators, dialysis machines, other equipment and 

supplies for an emergency treatment area”; and (2) preventing plaintiff’s transfer to another prison 

until there is a vaccine for Covid-19. Docket No. 2 at 3. 

In his three-page motion for a TRO, plaintiff declares that defendants do not have a plan to 

prevent or treat inmates or staff in the event of an outbreak of Covid-19, and that he is at a heightened 

risk of death due to heart disease and lung damage. Other than his statements in the 3-page motion 

signed under penalty of perjury, plaintiff submits no evidence in support of his motion. He also 

does not show that he has any expertise in medicine or epidemiology. Rather, his motion (like his 

complaint) appears to be based on information he has gathered from the news, other inmates, and 

perhaps prison staff about the coronavirus and Covid-19. 

C. Judicially Noticed Facts

A court may take judicial notice of facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute because 

they are generally known or are capable of accurate and ready determination. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). 

The court may take judicial notice of matters of public record, such as the existence and authenticity 

of a document, but cannot take judicial notice of the truth of its contents. See Lee v. City of Los 

Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689–90 (9th Cir. 2001); see, e.g., id. (court could judicially notice existence 

of waiver of extradition and that it was signed by plaintiff, but could not judicially notice that it was 

a valid waiver when no court had approved it). The court can take judicial notice of “public records 

and government documents available from reliable sources on the Internet, such as websites run by 

governmental agencies.” Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entm't Inc., 112 F.Supp.3d 1011, 1033 (C.D. 

Cal. 2015) (internal quotations omitted).

The court takes judicial notice of two facts that illustrate that the governmental response to 

the Covid-19 pandemic has evolved in the few short months the pandemic has been in the United 

Case 3:20-cv-03244-SI Document 9 Filed 05/19/20 Page 3 of 9
4

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

States. First, the Centers for Disease Control first recommended the use of cloth face coverings in 

public settings on April 3, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-gettingsick/cloth-face-cover.html. Second, the California statewide stay-at-home order was not issued until 

March 19, 2020. California Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20 on March 19, 

2020, directing California residents to heed the Order of the State Public Health Officer dated March 

19, 2020, which ordered individuals living in California “to stay home or at their place of residence” 

with certain exceptions. https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/3.19.20-attestedEO-N-33-20-COVID-19-HEALTH-ORDER.pdf. 

The court also takes judicial notice of materials on the CDCR’s website that reflect that the 

CDCR has prepared plans to address the spread of Covid-19 in the California prison system. There 

is an entire section of the CDCR’s website devoted to the Covid-19 situation and response efforts. 

https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/covid19/covid-19-response-efforts/#CFC. There also is a CDCR 

document providing interim guidance for health care providers in the California prison system. 

https://cchcs.ca.gov/covid-19-interim-guidance/. There also is information posted on the CDCR’s 

website describing restrictions on inmate transfers and inmate intake as part of the Covid-19 

response. https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/covid19/covid-19-response-efforts/#TRRP. Importantly, the 

court does not take judicial notice that the plans discussed on the CDCR’s website have been 

implemented or will be effective. Rather, the court only takes judicial notice that the CDCR has 

developed plans to address the Covid-19 problem in California prisons. 

DISCUSSION

A. Review of Complaint

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are 

frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se complaints 

must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Case 3:20-cv-03244-SI Document 9 Filed 05/19/20 Page 4 of 9
5

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

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation 

was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 

(1988).

Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation 

to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, 

and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations 

must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

Deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs violates the Eighth 

Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 

97, 104 (1976); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004). To establish an Eighth 

Amendment claim on a condition of confinement, such as medical care, a prisoner-plaintiff must 

show: (1) an objectively, sufficiently serious, deprivation, and (2) the official was, subjectively, 

deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 

(1994). A defendant is deliberately indifferent if he knows that an inmate faces a substantial risk of 

serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. Farmer, 511 

U.S. at 837. The defendant must not only “be aware of facts from which the inference could be 

drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but he “must also draw the inference.” Id. 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a plausible claim for an Eighth Amendment violation. His 

complaint falters on the deliberate indifference prong of an Eighth Amendment claim. Plaintiff’s

allegations that prison officials have no plans for prevention, treatment, medical staff, or equipment 

to address Covid-19 in the prisons are not plausible, given the ample evidence (of which this court 

has taken judicial notice) that the CDCR has prepared plans to address Covid-19 in the prison 

population. The CDCR’s website shows that the CDCR has plans regarding, for example, inmate 

movement, inmate health care, inmate release, as well as hygiene and sanitation in the prisons. His 

allegations that he was transported to several prisons in mid-March by persons who were not 

Case 3:20-cv-03244-SI Document 9 Filed 05/19/20 Page 5 of 9
6

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

wearing face masks or taking his temperature do not suggest deliberate indifference by the 

defendants in this action given that (a) the Centers for Disease Control did not recommend cloth 

face coverings in public settings until about two weeks after he was transported, (b) travel in 

California was not then restricted even for the unincarcerated population, and (c) he did not become 

sick as a result of being transported in the conditions he alleges. 

Leave to amend is granted so that plaintiff may file an amended complaint to attempt to 

plead a claim that is plausible on its face. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must allege facts that 

plausibly suggest that each defendant has been deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. 

Plaintiff also is cautioned that he should confine his allegations to his own individual situation, as 

he cannot complain about violations of the rights of other prisoners. See Russell v. United States, 

308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“ litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent 

anyone other than himself”); see also Griffin v. Smith, 493 F. Supp. 129, 131 (W.D.N.Y. 1980) 

(denying class certification on basis that pro se prisoner cannot adequately represent class). 

B. Motion For TRO

A temporary restraining order preserves the status quo and prevents irreparable harm until a 

hearing can be held on a preliminary injunction application. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. 

Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). A temporary 

restraining order is an “extraordinary remedy” that the court should award only when a plaintiff 

makes a clear showing that he is entitled to such relief. See Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 

Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). The standards for a temporary restraining order are the same as those

for a preliminary injunction. See Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 

F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). A plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success on the 

merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm that will result if an injunction is not issued, (3) the 

balance of equities tips in favor of the plaintiff, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. See 

Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.1 The irreparable injury must be both likely and immediate. See id. at 22; 

1 Winter did not, however, completely reject the validity of the sliding scale approach to 

preliminary injunctions. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:20-cv-03244-SI Document 9 Filed 05/19/20 Page 6 of 9
7

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

Caribbean Marine Services Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A plaintiff 

must do more than merely allege imminent harm sufficient to establish standing; a plaintiff must 

demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.”)

Plaintiff is not entitled to a TRO or preliminary injunction to require CDCR officials to 

implement certain steps to address Covid-19 or to require CDCR officials to refrain from 

transferring plaintiff. First, there does not appear to be a likelihood of success on the merits at this 

time. As explained in the preceding section, plaintiff has not yet stated a claim for relief. 

Second, plaintiff does not show irreparable injury that is both likely and imminent. The

evidentiary support for the requested TRO to compel CDCR officials to develop a plan – which 

consists only of plaintiff’s verified three-page motion -- falls far short of showing that irreparable 

harm is likely and imminent if interim relief is not granted. As explained above, plaintiff’s 

suggestion that the CDCR has no plan to address Covid-19 in the prison is not plausible, given the 

ample evidence on the CDCR’s website showing that the CDCR does have a plan. This is not to 

say that having some plan eliminates any concern about an inmate’s health and safety, as a plan that 

exists might not be put into practice or it might not be a plan that effectively addresses the problem. 

But plaintiff is not taking issue with the plan that is in place – he contends there is no plan. Plaintiff 

offers no competent evidence that the steps taken by CDCR to date and the plan the CDCR has 

described on the website, amount to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Moreover, 

plaintiff alleges that he is housed in a prison in a rural area in which there are only three cases of 

Covid-19; this also undermines the imminence of the threat to him. 

Plaintiff also fails to show irreparable injury that is both likely and imminent with regard to 

his request for a TRO prohibiting his transfer until a vaccine is developed. There is no evidence 

that prison officials are contemplating transferring him to another prison in the near future. He 

alleges that he is at Pelican Bay serving a SHU term that will expire in mid-August, three months 

2011). Under the “sliding scale” approach used in the Ninth Circuit – also dubbed the “serious 

question” test in Alliance for Wild Rockies -- “the elements of the preliminary injunction test are 

balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Id.

at 1131. Thus, even after Winter, “‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a hardship balance 

that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two 

elements of the Winter test are also met.” Id. at 1132 (citations omitted).

Case 3:20-cv-03244-SI Document 9 Filed 05/19/20 Page 7 of 9
8

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

from now. In three months, the Covid-19 situation likely will be quite different from today: Pelican 

Bay may be devoid of Covid-19 cases or it may be overrun with them. Plaintiff does not show that 

he will suffer irreparable harm if the interim relief is not granted. 

Finally, even if the foregoing problems did not exist, plaintiff does not show the need for a 

TRO without any notice to the defendants, who have not yet been served with process in this action. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) provides that a TRO can issue without notice to adverse 

party only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and 

irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard 

in opposition” and the movant certifies in writing the efforts to give notice and the reasons why 

notice should not be required. These stringent requirements “reflect the fact that our entire 

jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an 

opportunity to be heard has been granted both sides of a dispute.” Granny Goose, 415 U.S. at 423. 

Plaintiff does not show that immediate and irreparable injury will occur if the court does not act 

before allowing defendants to be heard, nor does he provide any information about his efforts to 

give notice to defendants. His failure to satisfy Rule 65(b)(1) is fatal to his ex parte motion. 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s ex parte motion for a TRO or injunction is DENIED. 

Docket No. 2.

C. Motion For Appointment Of Counsel

Plaintiff has moved for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A district 

court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an indigent 

civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th 

Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability 

of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. 

See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before deciding on 

a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Exceptional circumstances are not present. There appears 

to be a low likelihood of success on the merits, given the novelty of the medical issue and the mental 

state required for an Eighth Amendment claim. Plaintiff has been able to adequately articulate his 

Case 3:20-cv-03244-SI Document 9 Filed 05/19/20 Page 8 of 9
9

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

claim pro se. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Docket No. 4. 

CONCLUSION

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint 

that complies with the directions in this order no later than June 29, 2020. He must include the 

caption and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the 

first page of that document. Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint must be a complete 

statement of his claims. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) 

(“For claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not require that they be 

repled in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal. But for any claims 

voluntarily dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not repled.”) Failure to file the 

amended complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of this action. 

Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO or injunction is DENIED. Docket No. 2. 

Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel to represent him is DENIED. Docket No. 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-03244-SI Document 9 Filed 05/19/20 Page 9 of 9