Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02017/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02017-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENIS K. ROTROFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAM AHLIN, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:13-cv-02017-LJO-MJS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION FOR A 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE DENIED 

(ECF Nos. 4 and 5)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Denis K. Rotroff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On 

December 10, 2013, Plaintiff filed motions seeking a preliminary injunction and waiver of 

a security requirement. (ECF Nos. 4 and 5.) Plaintiff requests a court order directing 

Defendants to provide a privacy curtain in his room. (ECF No. 4 at 2.)

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 9, 2014. (ECF No. 11.) The 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff‟s allegations fail to state a claim and the injunction should 

be denied as moot. (Id. at 14.)

II. SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

Plaintiff‟s essential allegations can be summarized as follows:

Case 1:13-cv-02017-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff is a seventy year old civil detainee with no history of violence at Coalinga 

State Hospital (CSH), where he has been confined since 2007. In 2012, an inspection of 

CSH found that privacy curtains in detainees‟ rooms posed a safety hazard because

they concealed detainees from employees. The curtains subsequently were removed by 

staff.

Plaintiff responded by creating makeshift screens. Staff removed the screens 

and/or “wrote up” Plaintiff or threatened to do so. Plaintiff lost numerous privileges. His 

health has suffered dramatically as a result of the lack of privacy and the animosity 

which has arisen between himself and staff. (ECF No. 4.)

III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Injunctive relief, whether temporary or permanent, is an “extraordinary remedy 

never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24

(2008). The standards for a temporary restraining order are essentially the same as that 

for a preliminary injunction. “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.” Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 

F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). An injunction may only 

be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Winter, 555 U.S. 

at 22; Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378 (1976) (Injunctive relief is to be granted 

“sparingly, and only in [ ] clear and plain case[s].”). 

IV. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that he is likely to succeed on the merits. He asserts that as a civil 

detainee the Fourteenth Amendment dictates that he cannot be subjected to conditions 

that amount to punishment. In Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) the Ninth 

Circuit found “when a SVPA detainee is confined in conditions identical to, similar to, or 

more restrictive than, those in which his criminal counterparts are held, we presume that 

the detainee is being subjected to „punishment.‟” Id. at 932. Plaintiff contends that 

Case 1:13-cv-02017-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 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

3

without a privacy curtain his quarters are too similar to prison living conditions and 

therefore violate his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Court disagrees.

While Plaintiff is not a convicted criminal, he is involuntarily serving a civil 

commitment term at a secure facility; he is not a free individual with a full panoply of 

rights. Civil detainees are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of 

confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish, 

Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-2 (1982), but maintaining facility security and 

effectively managing the facility are unquestionably legitimate, non-punitive government 

interests, Jones, 393 F.3d at 932 (quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff alleges that the privacy curtains were determined to be a security risk 

during an inspection by state officials from outside CSH. Thus, though he suggests 

Defendants were overly aggressive in pursuing the no-curtain policy, Plaintiff concedes 

the policy arose from security concerns.

Under such circumstances and applicable law, it does not appear that Plaintiff‟s 

allegations are likely to state a claim.

The Court also is unpersuaded that Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm in 

the absence of an injunction. Plaintiff “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) (citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 22). Plaintiff 

alleges that he has suffered severe anxiety, dizzy spells, shortness of breath, and 

irregular heart rate as a result of the loss of his privacy curtain and related disputes. 

Taking all of Plaintiff‟s allegations as true, they suggest that Plaintiff, who is seventy, 

became sick for several months in 2012 after the no curtain policy was enacted. Plaintiff 

is certain that his symptoms were caused by the policy in question and that he will 

relapse. However, his conclusions and speculation in these regards are not supported 

by credible factual allegations. There are no facts, indeed nothing beyond Plaintiff‟s

bare claims, to support the suggestion his symptoms were caused by the lack of privacy.

Plaintiff‟s condition has improved and his certainty that a relapse will occur is 

Case 1:13-cv-02017-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 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

4

speculative.

Plaintiff‟s motion argues that the balance of equities tip in his favor because CSH 

possesses privacy curtains and the hardware is already installed. Again, the Court 

disagrees. Plaintiff does not address the security element. Reinstallation of privacy 

curtains implicates more than cost and installation resources. The privacy curtains were 

taken down because they were deemed a threat to institutional security.

Finally, Plaintiff argues that issuance of an injunction is in the public interest. The 

Court is of the opposite opinion. Any public interest that would be advanced by issuing 

an injunction in this case is greatly outweighed by the remaining factors, and in particular 

reasonable security concerns, discussed above. Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary 

remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to 

such relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22. Plaintiff has not clearly shown that he is entitled to 

injunctive relief. 

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff fails to provide facts which would enable the Court to find that he is in 

need of, and entitled to, injunctive relief. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above the 

Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 4) be 

DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff‟s motion seeking a waiver of the security 

requirement set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) should be DENIED as 

moot.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States 

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 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. Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy, 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 Recommendation.” 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 

Case 1:13-cv-02017-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 09/05/14 Page 4 of 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

5

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02017-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 09/05/14 Page 5 of 5