Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00034/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00034-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:19-cv-0034-GPC-RBB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH WAYNE SEKERKE,

Booking No. 18165284,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ARTURO LEON; MARK O’BRIEN;

JON MONTGOMERY; DANE OLSEN

and COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-0034-GPC-RBB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS 

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER AND 

INJUNCTION 

[ECF No. 77]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and 

injunction. ECF No. 77 (“Mot.”). No oppositions or replies have been filed. The Court 

hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

On January 7, 2019, Plaintiff proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

lawsuit. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in San Diego County Jail as a 

pretrial detainee. On February 10, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to file a 

Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF No. 53. In the SAC, Plaintiff argues that his 

right to medical care has been violated due to Defendants’ policy of refusing to provide 

narcotics to inmates and that he has suffered retaliation as a result of filing these claims. 

Case 3:19-cv-00034-JO-RBB Document 80 Filed 05/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:19-cv-0034-GPC-RBB

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

ECF No. 54 (“SAC”). On April 15, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part 

Defendants Arturo Leon and Mark O’Brien’s motion to dismiss the SAC. ECF No. 68. 

The remaining causes of action in the SAC are: Inadequate Medical Care against Dr. 

Leon as to the failure to provide morphine theory of recovery (claim one); Inadequate 

Medical Care – methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (“MRSA”) Infection (failure 

to provide treatment) against Dr. Leon (claim two); (3) Inadequate medical care –

Denying Prescription against Dr. Montgomery (claim three); State Supplemental Medical 

Claims against Dr. Leon (claim four); Retaliation against Deputy Olsen (claim six); and 

Liability of San Diego County based on all other Defendants being agents, employees, or 

co-conspirators (claim seven).

Legal Standard 

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 

Winter v. Natural Resources Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “In each case, courts 

must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party 

of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Id. (citing Amoco Prod. Co. v. 

Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987) (internal citations omitted)). As such, the “grant of a 

preliminary injunction is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial judge[.]” Evans 

v. Shoshone–Bannock Land Use Policy Comm'n, 736 F.3d 1298, 1307 (9th Cir. 2013). 

This discretion allows courts to properly evaluate when it is appropriate to grant 

preliminary relief in light of the “infinite variety of situations which may confront it.” 

A.L.K. Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 440 F.2d 761, 763 (3d Cir. 1971). 

District courts exercise this discretion according to a four-factor test mandated by 

traditional principles of equity. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391

(2006). The test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success on the 

merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that 

the balance of equities tips in the plaintiff's favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the 

public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20

(2008).

Case 3:19-cv-00034-JO-RBB Document 80 Filed 05/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:19-cv-0034-GPC-RBB

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

In performing this analysis, district courts must consider whether the nature of the 

relief sought in the motion is sufficiently related to the claims that give rise to the action. 

“The Ninth Circuit has formally adopted the rule . . . which requires a sufficient nexus 

between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth in the 

underlying complaint itself.” Hansen v. Cty. of San Diego, 2018 WL 3584461, at *2 

(S.D. Cal. July 26, 2018). As such, “[t]here must be a relationship between the injury 

claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying 

complaint for a court to grant a motion for injunctive relief; this requires a sufficient 

nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth 

in the underlying complaint itself.” Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 

810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). The relationship between the preliminary injunction 

and the underlying complaint must be “sufficiently strong where the preliminary 

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

Id. (citations omitted). “Absent that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks 

authority to grant the relief requested.” Id.

Discussion

On February 10, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s prior motion for a temporary 

restraining order and emergency injunction in order to obtain a magnetic resonance 

imaging (“MRI”) scan, which Plaintiff alleged was recommended by a physician on a 

November 20, 2019 due to Plaintiff’s hydrocephalus condition. ECF No. 53. In denying 

Plaintiff’s motion, the Court explained that Plaintiff sought relief based on events that 

were outside of the scope of the events that give rise to this action – i.e., the OctoberNovember 2018 provision of medical care and the “no narcotic” policy. ECF No. 53 at 

17. 

The same logic applies again to the instant motion. Here, Plaintiff filed a motion 

for a temporary restraining order on the basis that jail officials have denied Plaintiff 

Tramadol medication, which was prescribed to Plaintiff by a neurologist from an April 

20, 2020 visit to a neurologist at University of California San Diego. Mot. at 1. Plaintiff 

Case 3:19-cv-00034-JO-RBB Document 80 Filed 05/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:19-cv-0034-GPC-RBB

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

asserts that this Tramadol prescription is to “treat pain” – the “very pain outlined in 

Plaintiff’s complaint in which defendants have denied treatment for.” Id. Plaintiff notes 

that Tramadol is a “non-narcotic.” Id. 

Since Plaintiff is seeking to obtain non-narcotic prescription medication prescribed 

as a result of a visit to a neurologist, he is seeking relief that is outside the scope of this 

action. See e.g., Davis v. Paramo, 2016 WL 5682550, (S.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2016) (rejecting 

plaintiff’s medical care claims that arose from events that occurred after the plaintiff filed 

his complaint). Plaintiff notes that he “realizes these are grounds for an entirely new and 

separate lawsuit” but has filed in this case in order to save the court time, effort and 

resources. In order to adjudicate Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Defendants’ failure to 

provide a non-narcotic medication prescribed by a neurologist – presumably related to 

Plaintiff’s neurological condition – the Court would be required to engage in a factual 

analysis distinct from the analysis required by the substantial claims already alleged in 

the SAC against Defendants – i.e., inadequate medical care on the basis of failure to 

provide narcotic medication, inadequate medical care with respect to Plaintiff’s MRSA 

infection, and retaliation for filing these claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00034-JO-RBB Document 80 Filed 05/26/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4