Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00182/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00182-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD B. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-0182-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR

DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN

EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

(ECF No. 13)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Donald B. Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff originally

filed this action on February 2, 2011. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On March 17, 2011, the Court

issued an Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with Leave to Amend, and Plaintiff was

ordered to file an amended complaint. (Order, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed his First

Amended Complaint on April 20, 2011. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 15.) On August 29, 2011,

the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

-1-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 49 Filed 04/05/12 Page 1 of 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

1915(A)(a), and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim. (Order, ECF No. 20.) Thus,

this action is currently proceeding against Defendants Enenmoh, Faria, LeMay, Byers and

Oneyeje for allegedly violating the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference

to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. (Id.) Defendants Enenmoh, Faria, LeMay, and

Oneyeje have since been served and filed an Answer. (ECF Nos. 33 & 35.)1

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed on

April 20, 2011. (Pl.’s Mot., ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction,

directing that the Court order Defendants to provide Plaintiff and other inmates with “all

needed medical attention and meet all medical needs.” (Id. at 2.) In conjunction with his

Motion, Plaintiff has also filed a Memorandum of Law. (Pl.’s Mem. of Law, ECF No. 14.) 

Defendants Faria, LeMay, Onyeje, and Enenmoh (collectively, “Defendants”) have filed an

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. (Defs.’ Op, ECF No. 44.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230, the

time in which Plaintiff could have filed a reply has passed without Plaintiff having done so. 

Plaintiff’s Motion is now before the Court.

II. ARGUMENT

In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges:

On or about July 26, 2010, he was transferred to California State Prison in

Corcoran, California (“SATF”) where he is presently housed. (Am. Compl. at 7.) Plaintiff

has been a Type 2 insulin-dependent diabetic since 2001. (Id. at 5.) He suffers from both

hypo- and hyper-glycemia, i.e. low and high blood sugar levels. (Id.) On or about

The Court also found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Byers.

1

Defendant Byers has filed an Answer (ECF No. 42) and joined in the other Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

(ECF No. 45), but did not join the other Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary

Injunction.

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 49 Filed 04/05/12 Page 2 of 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

September 27, 2010, he was determined, without any medical testing, to no longer be

diabetic. (Id. at 7-8.) Nurse LeMay instructed the custody officers in Plaintiff’s dorm to

confiscate all of Plaintiff’s diabetes-related medications. (Id. at 9.) Nurse LeMay acted on

orders from Physician’s Assistant Byers, who in turn acted on orders from the Chief

Medical Officer. (Id. at 6-9.) Testing for diabetes in Plaintiff was terminated in November

2010. Plaintiff has not received any medical treatment for his diabetes since September

27, 2010. (Id. at 9.)

In the Motion, Plaintiff contends that the medical needs of him and other inmates

on SATF Yard-B have not been met for more than twenty weeks. (Mot. at 1.) The denial

of that care constitutes deliberate indifference to a serious harm. (Id.) Plaintiff asks the

Court to order Defendants to provide Plaintiff and other inmates with the medical care that

they require. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that he received no medical treatment from

September 27, 2010 to February 26, 2011. (Pl.’s Mem. of Law at 2.) Plaintiff contends 2

he was threatened with harm if he tried to go to the medical offices for treatment, and that

he was denied treatment from various other sources. (Id.) As a result, Plaintiff has

suffered from headaches, blurred eyes, temporary blindness, constipation, lethargy, and

depression. (Id. at 3.)

In their opposition, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has received appropriate

treatment for his medical condition. (Defs.’ Op. at 3.) Defendants submit a declaration

from Defendant Enenmoh detailing the medical care Plaintiff received at SATF. (Enenmoh

It is unclear whether Plaintiff alleges he is currently receiving treatment for his diabetes. His

2

Motion implies treatment resumed on February 26, 2011. His Amended Complaint seems to complain

that as of its filing date in April 2011 he still was not receiving treatment.

-3-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 49 Filed 04/05/12 Page 3 of 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

Dec., ECF No. 44-1) Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s treatment was only altered, not

stopped, because insulin and diabetic snacks were inappropriate and potentially harmful

for Plaintiff. (Defs.’ Op. at 4; Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 7-9.) Defendants contend that SATF

medical staff determined that Plaintiff’s diabetes could be controlled with diet and exercise. 

(Id.) Plaintiff’s medication was removed from his cell for direct distribution to him because

medical staff determined that he was hoarding his medications instead of taking them as

directed. (Defs.’ Op. at 4; Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 10.) SATF staff directly gave him

medication in place of insulin. (Id.; Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 4.) He was given Metformin to

control his diabetes and a number of other medications. (Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 4-5.) Plaintiff

was not precluded from obtaining medical treatment. (Enenmoh Dec. at ¶ 6.) SATF

medical staff regularly monitor Plaintiff’s blood sugar levels. (Id.)

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

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, 22, 129

S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008). “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). 

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires that any preliminary injunction "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 the harm." 18 U.S.C. §

-4-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 49 Filed 04/05/12 Page 4 of 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

3626(a)(2).

IV. ANALYSIS

The Court find that, at this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the legal

prerequisites for injunctive relief. As noted, to succeed on such a motion, Plaintiff 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, 129 S. Ct. at 374).

Plaintiff makes conclusory statements regarding these elements, but provides no

facts which would enable the Court to find that he is in need of and entitled to the injunctive

relief he seeks. He does not address the evidence from Defendants (and even the

suggestion in his own moving papers) that he currently is receiving the medical treatment

he requires.

To succeed on the merits on a claim of inadequate medical care, Plaintiff needs to

show “‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,

1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285 (1976)). 

The two part test for deliberate indifference requires Plaintiff to show (1) “‘a serious medical

need’ by demonstrating that ‘failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further

significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s

response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quoting

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds,

WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (internal

quotations omitted)).

-5-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 49 Filed 04/05/12 Page 5 of 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

To show deliberate indifference, Plaintiff must show “a purposeful act or failure to

respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the

indifference.” Id. (citing McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060). “Deliberate indifference is a high

legal standard.” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). “Under this

standard, the prison official must not only ‘be aware of the facts from which the inference

could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,’ but that person ‘must also

draw the inference.’” Id. at 1057 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.

Ct. 1970 (1994)). “‘If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then

the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.’” Id.

(quoting Gibson v. Cnty. of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that he is not receiving insulin and diabetic snacks he needs

to control his diabetes. Defendants respond that Plaintiff is receiving appropriate

treatment, albeit in a form recommended by medical staff which is different than what

Plaintiff thinks he should receive. 

Thus, instead of a failure to treat, it appears there is here only a disagreement over

the course of treatment elected. A prisoner’s mere disagreement with diagnosis or

treatment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d

240, 241 (9th Cir. 1989.) Given these facts and applicable law, the Court at this point has

no basis upon which to find a likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on the merits.

For similar reasons, Plaintiff cannot establish the other three requirements for an

injunction. Plaintiff has not shown that he will suffer an injury without the Court’s

intervention, because it appears that he is receiving appropriate treatment for his diabetes. 

Plaintiff has not acknowledged the alternate treatment, nor suggested if or how it might

-6-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 49 Filed 04/05/12 Page 6 of 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

cause him injury. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101-102 (1983) (To

obtain injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show that he will be subject to a real and immediate

threat). Given Defendants’ unrebutted allegations that Plaintiff is currently receiving

treatment, there is no basis to conclude Plaintiff is subject to a real and immediate threat. 

Plaintiff has not met this requirement.

As to the third element, i.e., the balancing of equities, the absence of a showing of

harm from the treatment being provided leaves nothing to tip the balance of equities in

Plaintiff’s favor. As to the fourth element, while the public has an interest in seeing

everyone, including Plaintiff, receive the best practical medical care, the Court can not

make a determination on the facts before it as to the best medical course for Plaintiff. At

least one medical practitioner has determined that Plaintiff’s condition is best treated

without diabetic snacks and non-insulin drugs. The record before the Court does not justify

the Court substituting its judgment for that of the medical practitioner. 

The various criteria not having been met, Plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary

injunctive relief.

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion

for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 13) be DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiff's right

to move again in the future if medical evidence which supports his claims is secured and

produced with any such renewed motion.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party

-7-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 49 Filed 04/05/12 Page 7 of 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

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 Recommendations."

Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Y1 st, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-8-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 49 Filed 04/05/12 Page 8 of 8