Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01193/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01193-3/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 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JEFFREY E. WALKER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MOHADJER, Clinical Psychologist, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1193 WBS AC P 

 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 On July 22, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order/preliminary 

injunction, claiming that he was being subjected to acts of retaliation in the form of serious rules 

violations reports for the filing of this lawsuit. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff provided some evidence 

that he suffers from anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder and indicated he had engaged in 

suicide attempts in the past. He appeared to be alleging that he is currently in psychiatric crisis 

and is not being properly monitored for suicidal ideation. 

By order filed on July 24, 2013 (ECF No. 14), the undersigned found plaintiff’s amended 

complaint to state a cognizable claim against defendant Mohadjer for inadequate medical care in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. By separate order (ECF No. 15), also filed on July 24, 2013, 

the court directed the defendant to respond within ten (10) days to plaintiff’s request for 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 20 Filed 08/06/13 Page 1 of 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 

2

immediate injunctive relief. The Attorney General and the defendant were directed to contact the 

appropriate medical/mental health authorities at CMF-Vacaville to ensure their awareness of 

plaintiff’s potential suicide risk. By special appearance, the Attorney General’s office has 

provided a timely response with respect to plaintiff’s current status. In the interim, plaintiff filed 

another putative motion for a TRO. ECF No. 17. Because the second motion relies on the same 

circumstances and allegations as the first, the court considers them together. After careful review, 

the court recommends denial of plaintiff’s motions for immediate injunctive relief. 

Motions 

Plaintiff makes a number of claims in these two motions, including that he is being 

subjected to retaliatory disciplinary charges which result in administrative segregation (“ad seg”) 

placement, and that he is not being properly monitored as a suicide risk. Plaintiff seeks either to 

have his ad seg placement rescinded or to have his transfer out of prison to a state hospital 

expedited. Plaintiff alleges that only treatment at Patton or Atascadero State Hospital is adequate 

to address the post-traumatic stress disorder he suffers as a result of sexual abuse. This allegation 

also forms the basis of plaintiff’s underlying amended complaint. 

 Standards Governing Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order 

 The purpose in issuing a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo pending 

a fuller hearing. The cases contain limited discussion of the standards for issuing a temporary 

restraining order due to the fact that very few such orders can be appealed prior to the hearing on 

a preliminary injunction. It is apparent, however, that requests for temporary restraining orders 

which are not ex parte and without notice are governed by the same general standards that govern 

the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See New Motor Vehicle Bd. v. Orrin W. Fox Co., 434 

U.S. 1345, 1347 n.2 (1977) (Rehnquist, J.); Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. United States Dist. 

Court, 650 F.2d 1004, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ferguson, J. dissenting); Century Time Ltd. v. 

Interchron Ltd., 729 F. Supp. 366, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). In many cases the emphasis of the court 

is directed to irreparable harm and the balance of hardships because the merits of a controversy 

are often difficult to ascertain and adjudicate on short notice. 

//// 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 20 Filed 08/06/13 Page 2 of 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 

3

Standards Governing Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction 

“A preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy’ . . . never awarded as 

of right.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689 90 (2008) (internal citations omitted). “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 Assn, Inc. v. City 

of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). A preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff 

demonstrates . . . “serious questions going to the merits and a hardship balance [] tips sharply 

toward the plaintiff, . . . assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met.” 

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). 

The Ninth Circuit has reiterated that under either formulation of the principles, if the 

probability of success on the merits is low, preliminary injunctive relief should be denied: 

Martin explicitly teaches that “[u]nder this last part of the 

alternative test, even if the balance of hardships tips decidedly in 

favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible 

minimum that there is a fair chance of success on the merits.” 

Johnson v. California State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting 

Martin v. International Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984)). 

In cases brought by prisoners involving conditions of confinement, any preliminary 

injunction “must 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. § 3626(a)(2). 

Likelihood of Success on the Merits 

In opposition to the motion at ECF No 13, Dr. Kumar, CDCR1 staff psychiatrist at Kern 

Valley State Prison (KVSP) Correctional Treatment Center (CTC), declares that plaintiff, who is 

currently confined at CTC in a crisis bed, does not qualify for hospitalization. Declaration of Dr. 

 

1

 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 20 Filed 08/06/13 Page 3 of 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 

4

Kumar (ECF No. 19-1) at ¶¶ 2-3. No contrary medical opinion is before the court. 

Accordingly, the present record does not support a finding that plaintiff is likely to prevail on the 

merits of his claim regarding psychiatric care. 

Likelihood of Irreparable Harm 

According to Dr. Kumar, plaintiff is on suicide watch consisting of one-on-one direct 

observation from the front of his cell by nursing staff. ECF No. 19-1 at ¶ 2. It is the doctor’s 

opinion that plaintiff’s threat to cut himself if he is taken off the one-on-one monitoring is for 

“secondary gain” in light of an alleged history of manipulative behavior by plaintiff. Id. 

Nevertheless, the doctor informs the court that plaintiff will continue to be treated as suicidal due 

to that part of plaintiff’s history which includes behavior that is self-injurious. Id. In addition, 

plaintiff has been “started on Zoloft for its anti-depressant and anti-anxiety effects.” Dr. Kumar 

emphasizes that he/she is “taking a cautious approach” notwithstanding what the doctor terms 

plaintiff’s “long history of attention seeking behavior.” Id. at ¶ 3. Dr. Kumar also states that 

plaintiff’s treatment plan calls for quickly stabilizing plaintiff and returning him to the California 

Medical Facility. ECF No. 19-1 at ¶ 3. In light of the evidence that plaintiff is being closely 

monitored and that a treatment plan is presently in place, the court cannot conclude that that 

plaintiff is likely to be subjected to irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief. 

Balance of the Equities 

 Plaintiff seeks transfer to a state hospital both for psychiatric treatment and as a remedy 

for his allegedly improper and retaliatory ad seg placement. On screening, the court did not find 

that the complaint states a claim of retaliation. See ECF No. 14. Moreover, the federal courts are 

generally loath to interfere with internal discipline in federal or state prisons. Winsby v. Walsh, 

321 F. Supp. 523, 526 (C.D. Cal. 1971). In general, prison officials’ housing and classification 

decisions do not implicate a prisoner’s constitutional rights. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 

U.S. 564, 569 (1972). Nor does the Constitution guarantee a prisoner placement in a particular 

prison or protect an inmate against being transferred from one institution to another. Meachum v. 

Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-225 (1976). 

The challenge . . . in prison condition cases, is to uphold the 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 20 Filed 08/06/13 Page 4 of 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 

5

Constitution in such a manner that respects the state’s unique 

interest in managing its prison population. It is a challenge that 

requires us to draw constitutional lines when necessary, yet 

minimize any intrusion into state affairs. 

Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146, 1279 (N.D. Cal. 1995). 

Regarding mental health treatment, the balance of the equities does not favor judicial 

intervention at this stage of the proceedings. Plaintiff is being monitored for suicide risk and is 

receiving mental health services. On the present record, it cannot be concluded that these 

measures are inadequate. There is no basis for this court to override the medical judgments of 

prison psychiatric staff. 

 Public Interest 

No identifiable public interest would be served by the court’s interference with plaintiff’s 

treatment or housing. 

Conclusion 

For all the reasons set forth above, plaintiff has not established his entitlement to 

immediate injunctive relief. 

 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motions for immediate injunctive 

relief (ECF Nos. 13 and 17) be denied. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within fourteen 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 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 20 Filed 08/06/13 Page 5 of 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 

6

District Courts order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991). 

DATED: August 5, 2013 

 

 ___________________________________ 

 ALLISON CLAIRE 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

AC:009 

walk1193.pi 

Case 2:13-cv-01193-WBS-AC Document 20 Filed 08/06/13 Page 6 of 6