Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01279/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01279-8/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

1

Upon screening, the Court dismissed 22 other individuals as Defendants (Doc. #13).

2

More complete background facts can be found in the Court’s prior Orders at

Document ##127 or 188. 

3

Also before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #135),

which is fully briefed and currently under consideration. 

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karl Louis Guillen, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Gerald Thompson, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1279-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Karl Louis Guillen brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Dora Schriro, former Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Director, and

Ronolfo Macabuhay, Lewis Complex physician (Doc. #11).1

 Plaintiff alleged that

Defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating Plaintiff’s pain and symptoms associated

with postherpetic neuralgia (id. at 3-3A).2

 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Emergency Notice and Request for TRO/PI”

(Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction) (Doc. #166), which Defendants

oppose (Doc. #174).3

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 193 Filed 05/05/10 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 -

I. Plaintiff’s Emergency Notice and TRO/PI Request

A. Plaintiff’s Contentions

Plaintiff alleges that in January 2010, he received some of his legal boxes from the

property officer, but the officer did not inspect the boxes upon delivery as required under

ADC policy (Doc. #166 at 2). Plaintiff avers that when he opened one box, he found that

documents had been shredded and eaten by mice and there was mice excrement within the

papers (id.). Plaintiff states that his immediate concern was the possibility of exposure to

Hanta Virus infection (id.). His requests for the box to be removed from his cell were not

responded to, so the box was left in his cell for approximately 11 hours (id.). Plaintiff states

that, finally, a correctional officer inspected the box, documented the damage and excrement

in the papers, and removed the box (id.). Plaintiff wrote to Sergeant Sturm and Deputy

Warden Carrillo to inquire about recovering his documents and if necessary, obtaining

replacement copies from the court; there was no response from Sturm or Carrillo (id. at 3).

Plaintiff alleges that these officials, along with Assistant Deputy Warden Cluff, intended to

cause harm and were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical condition when they

introduced the Hanta Virus into Plaintiff’s cell (id.). He further alleges that this act is part

of a pattern of actions by Defendants and their agents to deny Plaintiff legal access to the

courts (id. at 3-4). Plaintiff states that the whereabouts of his legal box are unknown, and it

is unknown whether Plaintiff contracted Hanta Virus (id. at 5). Plaintiff avers that there has

been no response to his requests to see medical personnel (id.). 

In his motion, Plaintiff specifically requests that the Court issue an Order directing

Defendants to test him for Hanta Virus infection; to inspect Plaintiff’s legal box with a Hanta

Virus specialist, in Plaintiff’s presence and with the appropriate hazardous-material clothing;

and to examine all his other legal boxes for further infestation and determine the replacement

costs of any destroyed documents (id. at 1, 5-6). Plaintiff asks that the Court direct

Defendants to remove all of Plaintiff’s legal storage boxes from the area where this box was

infested and have experts eradicate the mice (id. at 5-6). He also asks that all property

officers at the facility be prevented from handling Plaintiff’s property (id. at 6). Finally,

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 193 Filed 05/05/10 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 -

Plaintiff requests that he be released to home arrest if it is determined that Defendants

attempted to cause him harm or irreparable injury (id.).

With his motion, Plaintiff submits copies of two different inmate letters he filed

concerning the damage to his legal box and a copy of his Inmate Property Inventory form

(id., Attachs.).

B. Defendants’ Response

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief and contend that Plaintiff’s

allegations and his accompanying inmate letters show that when excrement was found in his

legal box, officials responded and removed it (Doc. #174 at 3). They further contend that

there is no showing that Plaintiff is in danger of missing a legal deadline, that he will suffer

immediate and irreparable harm, or that Defendants are acting with deliberate indifference

to Plaintiff’s medical needs (id.).

Plaintiff did not file a reply.

II. Preliminary Injunction

A. Legal Standard

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the movant must show “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.”

Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). A preliminary

injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy and “one that should not be granted unless

the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong,

520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam) (quoting 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, pp. 129-130 (2d ed. 1995)). 

A court may not issue an injunction against individuals who are not parties to a suit

pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 110 (1969).

Further, a party seeking preliminary injunctive relief “must necessarily establish a

relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the

complaint.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (Eighth Amendment

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 193 Filed 05/05/10 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 -

medical-care claim cannot provide basis for preliminary injunction against alleged acts in

retaliation for filing claim); see also Kaimowitz v. Orlando, 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997).

B. Analysis

Plaintiff’s claim against Schriro and Macabuhay is a medical-care claim under the

Eighth Amendment, which cannot provide a basis for injunctive relief against retaliation or

for property or sanitation claims. See Devose, 42 F.3d at 471. Further, to the extent that

Plaintiff seeks an injunction against individuals other than Defendants, his request is

improper. See Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 110. 

Even assuming that Plaintiff’s PI/TRO request was related to the underlying medicalcare claim, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he is likely to suffer an irreparable injury. As

noted by Defendants, Plaintiff makes no showing that exposure to the box has placed him at

risk of suffering irreparable harm (Doc. #174 at 3). Plaintiff’s assertion that he may have

been exposed to the Hanta Virus is too speculative to entitle him to injunctive relief. See

Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009)

(injunction not warranted “merely because it is possible that there will be an irreparable

injury to the plaintiff; it must be likely that there will be”). Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated

that the removal of his box will likely cause an injury, such as missing a legal deadline. See

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49 (1996) (access-to-court claim requires showing of

actual injury, such as the inability to present a claim or to meet a filing deadline).

Finally, Plaintiff’s request for relief is too broad to properly incorporate into a

preliminary injunction, which must be “narrowly drawn [and] extend no further than

necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief . . . .” 18 U.S.C.

§ 3626(a)(2). 

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s request for a TRO/PI will be denied.

//

//

//

//

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 193 Filed 05/05/10 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 -

IT IS ORDERED:

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

Notice and Request for TRO/PI (Doc. #166).

(2) Plaintiff’s Emergency Notice and Request for TRO/PI (Doc. #166) is denied.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 193 Filed 05/05/10 Page 5 of 5