Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-01631/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-01631-3/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 

SKC/KM 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Edward Lamar Carpenter, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

 No. CV 18-01631-PHX-DGC (JFM) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Edward Lamar Carpenter, who is currently confined in the Arizona State 

Prison Complex-Lewis, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion: To Add Additional Facts to Motion Sent 28 Feb 

2019 Hernia, Knee & Hemroid [sic]” (Doc. 70) and “Motion: Discovery of Dental Records 

and Additional Facts” (Doc. 83), which the Court construes as Motions for Preliminary 

Injunction. The Court is also in receipt of Defendants Corizon Health, Inc. (“Corizon”) 

and Dentist Dr. Larry Russell’s “Joint Notice to Court Regarding Periodontal Treatment” 

(Doc. 66), to which Plaintiff has filed a Response (Doc. 67). 

I. Background 

On screening of Plaintiff’s four-count First Amended Complaint (Doc. 30) under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court determined that Plaintiff stated claims against Defendants 

Corizon, Nurse Practitioner (NP) Lawrence Ende, Nurse LaToya Bryce, and Dr. Russell 

for alleged violations of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights regarding his medical and 

dental care. (Docs. 17, 48.) 

Case 2:18-cv-01631-DGC Document 88 Filed 06/19/19 Page 1 of 11
- 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 

II. Notice Regarding Periodontal Treatment 

On February 12, 2019, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Amended 

Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 18), in which Plaintiff sought relief for various 

medical issues, including an asserted need for urgent dental care. (See Doc. 55.) In denying 

the Motion, the Court relied in part on Dr. Russell’s December 21, 2018 treatment plan for 

Plaintiff to receive follow-up periodontal treatment and gave Defendants Corizon and 

Russell 30 days to “file a Notice indicating whether they have provided follow-up 

periodontal treatment for Plaintiff in accordance with Dr. Russell’s December 21, 2018 

treatment plan or explaining why such treatment has not been provided.” (Doc. 55.) 

In their Notice, filed on March 13, 2019, Corizon and Russell (“Defendants”) 

produce dental records showing that Plaintiff received the follow-up periodontal treatment 

Dr. Russell prescribed. (Doc. 66.) The records show that, on February 22, 2019, Plaintiff 

was seen by Dental Assistant Delvia Orellana for teeth cleaning. (Doc. 66-3.) He was also 

seen by Dentist Jose DeLossantos, who completed scaling and root planing of all four 

quadrants of Plaintiff’s mouth based on Plaintiff’s desire to keep his teeth as long as 

possible and discussed Plaintiff’s need for extractions of teeth 29 and 30 due to mobility 

and bone loss, which Plaintiff indicated he understood. (Doc. 66-4.) This treatment was 

in accordance with Dr. Russell’s December 21, 2018 treatment plan. (See Doc. 66-1.) 

Plaintiff filed a Response to the Notice (Doc. 67), in which he largely realleges 

complaints about his dental care that the Court already addressed in its February 12, 2019 

Order denying all of Plaintiff’s requests for preliminary injunctive relief. (See Doc. 55.) 

Although Plaintiff continues to disagree with the course of dental treatment Defendants 

have provided going back to 2011, he does not dispute that he has received the care Dr. 

Russell prescribed, which was the only remaining issue from Plaintiff’s Amended Motion 

for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 18) still pending before the Court. Because Defendants 

have produced evidence that Plaintiff received this treatment, there are no remaining issues 

to address relative to that Motion, and no further notice or action from Defendants with 

respect to that Motion is required. 

Case 2:18-cv-01631-DGC Document 88 Filed 06/19/19 Page 2 of 11
- 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 

III. Plaintiff’s New Motions for Preliminary Injunction 

 A. Legal Standard 

“A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should 

not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.’” 

Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 

U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 

U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted) (“[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy 

never awarded as of right”). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show that 

(1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm without 

an injunction, (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the 

public interest. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “But if a plaintiff can only show that there are 

‘serious questions going to the merits’—a lesser showing than likelihood of success on the 

merits—then a preliminary injunction may still issue if the ‘balance of hardships tips 

sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,’ and the other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Shell 

Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Alliance 

for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). Under this serious 

questions variant of the Winter test, “[t]he elements . . . must be balanced, so that a stronger 

showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Lopez, 680 F.3d at 

1072. 

 Regardless of which standard applies, the movant “has the burden of proof on each 

element of the test.” See Envtl. Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 

1027 (E.D. Cal. 2000). Further, there is a heightened burden where a plaintiff seeks a 

mandatory preliminary injunction, which should not be granted “unless the facts and law 

clearly favor the plaintiff.” Comm. of Cent. Am. Refugees v. INS, 795 F.2d 1434, 1441 (9th 

Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). 

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act imposes additional requirements on prisoner 

litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials and requires that 

any injunctive relief be narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means necessary to correct 

Case 2:18-cv-01631-DGC Document 88 Filed 06/19/19 Page 3 of 11
- 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 

the harm. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see Gilmore v. People of the State of Cal., 220 F.3d 987, 

999 (9th Cir. 2000). 

 B. Plaintiff’s First Motion 

 The Court has construed Plaintiff’s “Motion: To Add Additional Facts to Motion 

Sent 28 Feb 2019 Hernia, Knee & Hemroid [sic]” (Doc. 70) as a new motion for 

preliminary injunctive relief related to Plaintiff’s medical concerns. (See Doc. 83.) As set 

forth in Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s May 3, 2019 Order, the Court will consider 

Plaintiff’s construed Motion and his construed supplements (Docs. 62, 77) as part of that 

Motion when addressing the issues raised therein. (See Doc. 83.) 

 In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks a Court order directing Defendants to repair his 

hernia, replace the hernia mesh, perform an MRI on his knee, and assign him job 

accommodations that will allow him to rest and take pain medications as needed.1

1. Hernia 

Plaintiff requests that the Court order “hernia repair” and “mesh replacement . . . for 

the hernia.” (Doc. 70 at 6.) He provides no facts in his Motion, however, about why he is 

requesting hernia repair or a hernia mesh replacement. In his First Amended Complaint, 

Plaintiff alleged that he discussed his hernia with NP Ende in April 2018, and Ende said he 

would provide Tylenol for Plaintiff’s pain, but as of May 2, 2018, Plaintiff had not received 

his pain medication. (Doc. 10 at 4.) Plaintiff alleged that he also inquired about having 

 

1

 Plaintiff includes facts in this Motion and supporting documents regarding his 

alleged skin cancer, dental, and gastrointestinal issues, for which he makes no 

corresponding requests for relief. Absent any requests for relief, the Court will not address 

these facts here. To the extent Plaintiff requests injunctive relief for these additional issues 

in his second Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court will consider these facts when 

addressing that Motion. Plaintiff should be aware, however, that the Court only adjudicates 

specific requests for relief set forth in Motions. As such, Plaintiff must clearly identify and 

support each request for relief in each corresponding motion. As previously explained, the 

Court cannot be expected to keep a running tally of allegations set forth in numerous filings 

that may or may not pertain to the requests for relief raised in a given motion. (See

Doc. 83.) 

Case 2:18-cv-01631-DGC Document 88 Filed 06/19/19 Page 4 of 11
- 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 

surgery to repair his hernia, but Ende said Corizon was unwilling to spend money on hernia 

surgery. (Id.) 

The Court already addressed Plaintiff’s alleged hernia-related issues in its 

January 14, 2019 Order denying, in part, Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. In that Order, the Court found that Plaintiff 

had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or raised “serious questions” going to 

the merits of his hernia-related claims as required to obtain preliminary injunctive relief. 

(See Doc. 44 at 7.) The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to produce evidence that he 

was suffering or was likely to suffer irreparable harm. (Id. at 8.) Instead, the evidence 

showed that Defendant Ende and non-defendant NP Thude had each examined Plaintiff’s 

hernia, provided Plaintiff Tylenol and Ibuprofen, and instructed Plaintiff to avoid physical 

activities that may exacerbate his hernia. (Id.) Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiff 

did not produce any competent medical evidence showing he required hernia-repair surgery 

or that the hernia aide and pain relivers Defendants provided him were inadequate. (Id.) 

Absent any new facts showing he faces a threat of irreparable harm without additional care, 

the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion as to his requests for hernia-related relief. 

2. Knee/Job Issues 

Plaintiff alleges he has pain in his left knee, causing him limited range of motion 

and back pain. (Doc. 70 at 3.) He claims that after he was reassigned to kitchen duty, 

Officer Velasquez ignored his medical restrictions, requiring him to work the kitchen line 

and rejecting his multiple requests for relief and to be permitted to take pain medication. 

(Id. at 4−5.) Plaintiff states that he alerted Lt. Wright that he was being assigned kitchen 

duties and was not allowed to take pain medications during his shift. (Id. at 5−6.) Plaintiff 

claims that he also wrote a letter to Deputy Warden Golder requesting an immediate job 

change, and Sgt. O’Halloran relieved Plaintiff from his work in the kitchen; Plaintiff states 

that he does not currently have a new work assignment. (Id. at 6; Doc. 77 at 2.) 

Defendants have produced medical record evidence that Plaintiff has received 

appropriate care for his knee. The evidence shows that Plaintiff saw NP Ende for his knee 

Case 2:18-cv-01631-DGC Document 88 Filed 06/19/19 Page 5 of 11
- 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 

pain on March 28, 2019, and Ende ordered Plaintiff more acetaminophen and insoles to 

help alleviate Plaintiff’s pain. (Doc. 84-1 at 14−16).2

 Ende also renewed Plaintiff’s ADA 

restrictions and recommended no lifting, pushing, pulling or running for the next year. (Id.) 

Ende noted no issues with Plaintiff’s knee that would necessitate a knee replacement and 

ordered x-rays to check for previous knee replacement. (Id. at 16.). According to Ende, 

Dr. Justin Weiss determined from his review of these x-rays that Plaintiff’s knee was in 

excellent position, without complication; Ende therefore determined there was no 

indication Plaintiff needed a knee replacement. (Doc. 84-1, Ex. 4 (Ende Decl.) ¶ 7.) 

With respect to Plaintiff’s kitchen job, the evidence shows that on April 10, 2019, 

Plaintiff informed non-defendant RN Arletta that he was working more and requested a job 

change where he could lie down and take pain medication as needed. (Doc. 84-3 at 41.) 

Arletta noted in her treatment plan that she would follow up with the employment 

coordinator regarding Plaintiff’s job limitations and special needs order (SNO). (Id. at 44.) 

According to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has since been relieved of his job and does not currently 

have a work assignment. (Doc. 70 at 6; Doc. 77 at 2.) 

 On this record, Plaintiff has not shown a risk of irreparable harm due to his alleged 

knee issues. The evidence shows that Plaintiff has already received acetaminophen, 

insoles, an ADA order, and x-rays in response to his knee complaints. Further, the x-ray 

results indicating that Plaintiff’s knee is in excellent position without complication support 

Defendants’ contention that an MRI is not medically indicated at this time. 

Additionally, the fact that Plaintiff is no longer working in the kitchen moots any of 

Plaintiff’s asserted needs for appropriate workplace relief. To the extent Plaintiff appears 

to request that the Court order that he be given a new job in line with his asserted medical 

limitations, Plaintiff has also not shown that he will suffer irreparable harm absent a job. 

Moreover, this request extends beyond the underlying claims in this action, and the Court 

lacks jurisdiction to order such relief. “When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on 

 

2

 The citation refers to the document and page number generated by the Court’s 

Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system. 

Case 2:18-cv-01631-DGC Document 88 Filed 06/19/19 Page 6 of 11
- 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 

claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an 

injunction.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’ s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th 

Cir. 2015); see also De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945) 

(preliminary injunctive relief is inappropriate for matters “lying wholly outside the issues 

in the suit.”). The Ninth Circuit has found that “[t]he relationship between the preliminary 

injunction and the underlying complaint is sufficiently strong where the preliminary 

injunction would grant ‘relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.’ 

Absent that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks authority to grant the relief 

requested.” Pac. Radiation, 810 F.3d at 633, quoting De Beers, 325 U.S. at 220. 

 Absent any grounds for ordering preliminary injunctive relief for Plaintiff’s hernia, 

knee, and job-related complaints, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s first Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction. 

C. Plaintiff’s Second Motion 

The Court has construed Plaintiff’s “Motion: Discovery of Dental Records and 

Additional Facts” as a new motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (See Doc. 83.) In this 

Motion, Plaintiff seeks relief for (1) his gastrointestinal issues, for which he seeks a Court 

Order directing Defendants to provide wet wipes, tuck pads, and probiotics due to frequent 

stools; (2) his skin cancer, for which he seeks a Court Order that Defendants provide 

sunscreen, long sleeve shirts, a hat, and any prescriptions the dermatologist recommends 

in the future; and (3) his dental issues, for which he seeks a Court Order that Defendants 

provide a toothbrush, dental implants, and a future 6-month dental cleaning schedule. 

(Doc. 81 at 3−4)3

1. Gastrointestinal Issues 

 Plaintiff alleges he suffers gastrointestinal issues due to medication he received after 

a dermatologist performed surgery on February 21, 2019 between his shoulders and arms, 

 

3

 Plaintiff also seeks an MRI and other relief for his left knee for which he fails to 

provide support in this Motion, and which the Court has already addressed and denied in 

the previous Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court will not further address 

Plaintiff’s knee-related requests here. 

Case 2:18-cv-01631-DGC Document 88 Filed 06/19/19 Page 7 of 11
- 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 

requiring 12 stiches and several bandage changes. (Doc. 62 at 1.) He claims that the site 

of the stitches became infected, and Nurse Artisan changed the bandage and gave Plaintiff 

prescriptions for Rocephin and Clindamycin. (Doc. 84-6 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that the 

Clindamycin caused him to have frequent bloody bowel movements starting on 

February 26, 2019. (Doc. 70 at 1.) Thereafter, on March 21, 2019, NP DeMello saw 

Plaintiff for his gastrointestinal issues and hernia and found a hemorrhoid, for which she 

prescribed fiber pills, Tylenol, and hemorrhoid cream. (Id. at 1−2.) On April 1, 2019, 

Plaintiff alleges he saw Nurse Pluckett and told her he continued to suffer from frequent 

bowel movements and bleeding and had not yet received the hemorrhoid cream, which he 

alleges he did not receive until April 10, 2019. (Id.) On April 10, 2019, he states that 

Nurse Artisan gave him stool sample cards for testing, and she recommended probiotics, 

which Plaintiff states he did not receive. (Doc. 70 at 3; Doc. 77 at 1–2.) Plaintiff alleges 

that medical staff told him they could not give him probiotics until his stool samples had 

been tested. (Doc. 81 at 1.) Without the probiotics, wet wipes, or tuck pads, Plaintiff 

claims he is unable to alleviate the pain and discomfort from his gastrointestinal symptoms. 

(Id. at 2.) 

Defendants produce evidence that Plaintiff is receiving proper treatment for his 

gastrointestinal complaints. The evidence shows, for instance, that on March 21, 2019, NP 

DeMello conducted a rectal exam in response to Plaintiff’s complaints and found no 

abnormalities and that Plaintiff’s hernia was small, did not require surgery, and there was 

no bleeding. (Doc. 84-1, Ex. 6 (DeMello Decl.) at ¶ 7.) DeMello prescribed Tylenol for 

pain; offered a suppository for Plaintiff’s gastrointestinal discomfort and hemorrhoid, 

which Plaintiff refused; and provided collection cards and sticks for three separate stool 

samples, but Plaintiff failed to return these cards. (Id. ¶ 8.) DeMello also prescribed fiber 

pills, which medical records show Plaintiff began receiving the next day; and, in response 

to an HNR Plaintiff' filed on April 4, 2019, she ordered hemorrhoid cream, which Plaintiff 

began receiving the next day, and which DeMello renewed on April 24, 2019; Plaintiff was 

also informed he was not eligible for wet wipes, which are only prescribed in rare cases, or 

Case 2:18-cv-01631-DGC Document 88 Filed 06/19/19 Page 8 of 11
- 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 

tuck pads, which are not prescribed to any prisoners. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 18; Doc. 84-3, Exs. 42−46, 

49.) Further, when Plaintiff continued to complain of loose stools and pain, DeMello 

ordered four more stool tests, and Plaintiff provided two stool samples, which tested 

negative for blood. (Doc. 84-3, Ex. 47.) He later provided one additional stool sample, for 

which lab tests are still pending, and he never provided the fourth sample. (Id., Ex. 48.) 

NP Ende also prescribed probiotics, which Plaintiff began receiving on April 30, 2019. 

(Id., Ex. 51.) Although Plaintiff did not receive the wet wipes and tuck pads he requested, 

he has not shown that these items are medically indicated, and there is no evidence Plaintiff 

requires further care or testing for his gastrointestinal issues in addition to the care he has 

already been provided. 

2. Skin Cancer 

As to his alleged skin cancer, Plaintiff alleges that an outside dermatologist took 

skin grafts from Plaintiff’s nose and ankle and recommended collagen, cod liver oil, and 

vitamins. (Doc. 77 at 2.) Plaintiff states that he has not yet been notified of the skin graft 

results. (Id.) He further alleges that NP DeMello informed him she ordered sunscreen 

lotion, long sleeve shirts, and a hat, but Plaintiff has not yet received any of these items. 

(Id. at 3.) 

Plaintiff’s complaints regarding his alleged skin cancer also do not show he faces a 

threat of irreparable harm absent Court-ordered relief. Defendants show, for instance, that 

NP DeMello requested an outside dermatology consultation for the areas on Plaintiff’s nose 

and right ankle that she believed might require a skin biopsy, and she later ordered a 

dermatologist-recommended topical medication, which was filled by the pharmacy on 

April 4, 2019. (Doc. 84-2, Ex. 27.) Plaintiff has also been scheduled for a follow-up 

dermatologist consultation regarding his skin biopsies. (Id., Ex. 35.) Additionally, 

DeMello put in an SNO for Plaintiff to receive long-sleeved shirts and informed Plaintiff 

that he could purchase sunscreen from the prison store, which Plaintiff agreed to do. (Id., 

Exs. 25, 30; DeMello Decl. ¶ 6a.) Although it is unclear on the current record whether 

Plaintiff ever received his long-sleeved shirts or a hat, as Plaintiff claims he also requested, 

Case 2:18-cv-01631-DGC Document 88 Filed 06/19/19 Page 9 of 11
- 10 - 

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 

the lack of these recommended items, on their own, does not show that Plaintiff faces a 

threat of irreparable harm. This is particularly so where the evidence shows, and Plaintiff 

does not dispute, that Plaintiff can obtain sunscreen for skin protection from the prison 

store if he chooses to do so, and he is otherwise receiving regular monitoring and treatment 

for his dermatological needs. 

3. Dental Issues 

 With respect to his dental issues, Plaintiff acknowledges that, on February 22, 2019, 

Nurse Orellana and Dr. DeLossantos performed a deep teeth cleaning. (Doc. 62 at 2.) 

Aside from this, Plaintiff merely alleges instances of past harm or disagreements with his 

past care, which are not grounds for preliminary injunctive relief. (Id. at 2−3.) See Conn. 

v. Mass., 282 U.S. 660, 674 (1931) (an injunction is only appropriate “to prevent existing 

or presently threatened injuries”). Plaintiff also alleges a current need for a different 

toothbrush, without which he alleges he will be unable to prevent the advancement of his 

periodontal disease. (Doc. 77 at 3.) 

As already discussed, it is undisputed that Plaintiff received a recent deep cleaning 

of his teeth, as recommended by Dr. Russell, and there is no evidence Plaintiff requires any 

further periodontal care at this time. With respect to his request for a different toothbrush, 

the dental records this Court has already discussed in a prior Order show that, in September 

2018, Dentist Dr. Gray told Plaintiff that he could not authorize an alternate toothbrush, 

and Dr. Gray noted that Plaintiff had no dexterity issues that would indicate a need for a 

different toothbrush. (See Doc. 55 at 4−5; Doc. 84-5, Ex. 35.) 

In summary, although Plaintiff has filed numerous Motions, “Notices” and 

“Supplements” regarding his medical issues since filing this action, he has not shown he is 

entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to any of his pending claims. As noted, Courtordered relief prior to a judgment on the merits is an exception and requires a plaintiff to 

carry the burden of persuasion on each of the Winter factors set forth above, including a 

likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. Allegations of past harm, mere 

disagreements with medically-recommended care, or speculations of future harm, such as 

Case 2:18-cv-01631-DGC Document 88 Filed 06/19/19 Page 10 of 11
- 11 - 

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 

Plaintiff alleges here, are insufficient to carry this burden. See Conn., 282 U.S. at 674; 

Caribbean Marine Services Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F. 2d 668, 674-675 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Instead, Plaintiff must demonstrate a current threat of irreparable harm related to his 

underlying claims for which he can show he is likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiff 

has not made these required showings, and the Court will deny both pending Motions. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 (1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s 

“Motion: To Add Additionally Facts to Motion Sent 28 Feb 2019 Hernia, Knee and 

Hemroid [sic]” (Doc. 70) and “Motion: Discovery of Dental Records and Additional Facts” 

(Doc. 81), which the Court construes as Motions for Preliminary Injunction. 

 (2) Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction. (Docs. 70, 81) are denied. 

 (3) Defendants Corizon and Russell’s “Joint Notice to Court Regarding 

Periodontal Treatment” (Doc. 66) satisfies their obligation to file a Notice that they have 

provided periodontal treatment for Plaintiff, as set forth in the Court’s February 12, 2019 

Oder (Doc. 55), and no further notice or action regarding that issue is required at this time. 

 Dated this 19th day of June, 2019. 

Case 2:18-cv-01631-DGC Document 88 Filed 06/19/19 Page 11 of 11