Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00614/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00614-2/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

I. Background

Plaintiff James Garrett (“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 initiated this action on April 20, 2015. 

On June 1, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) 

Plaintiff timely filed a first amended complaint on June 24, 2015. (ECF No. 10.) 

On February 1, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, with leave to 

amend. (ECF No. 11.) On February 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF 

No. 12.) Shortly thereafter, on April 28, 2016, Plaintiff notified the Court of his change of address, and 

that he has been transferred to the California Men’s Colony, in San Luis Obispo, California. 

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is currently before the Court.

JAMES GARRETT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

STU SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00614-AWI-BAM (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

(ECF No. 12) 

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:15-cv-00614-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 5
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. Motion for Preliminary Injunction

In Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction, he states that he is dealing with the intentional, 

delayed process of exhausting his administrative remedies and inmate appeals. He states that he 

attaches exhibits pertaining to the motion. These exhibits largely consist of inmate appeals and 

responses. Plaintiff further states that his amended section 1983 complaint is attached to his motion, 

but there is no such amended complaint attached.

1

Plaintiff states that he was subjected to medical abuse, discrimination, and ongoing 

constitutional violations at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”). Plaintiff 

gives a “brief history” of these matters in support of his motion. He states that he arrived at CSATF in 

September 2014, under the care of Dr. Khankohova. Dr. Khankohova switched Plaintiff’s medication 

from Dyflukin, a brand name medication for the treatment of Valley Fever, to a generic brand of 

fluconazole tablets. This saves the CDCR funds. Plaintiff had been prescribed Dyflukin since his 

contraction of Valley Fever in 2011. Within one week, Plaintiff was complaining of side-effects from 

the medication switch, which was done without prior consultation. Dr. Igbinosa, Plaintiff’s primary 

care physician, also does this regularly. Plaintiff requested to receive an MRI on his body to reveal the 

side-effects and continued numbness in his hands, legs, feet, arms, and his private areas, but he did not 

receive an MRI. Plaintiff argues that these are constitutional violations by both doctors, including the 

continued delay or denial of medical treatment. 

Plaintiff also states that he has lost extreme amounts of weight since his transfer to CSATF, 

and has continued joint pains, disoriented moments, headaches, occasional night sweats, and fatigue. 

Dr. Igbinosa has not prescribed any supplements, such as energy drinks, to gain or sustain weight. Nor 

has the doctor discussed pain management with Plaintiff. The doctor did make appointments with a 

mental health clinician for Plaintiff. 

///

 

1 By a separate order, the Court will require Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint, or a voluntary 

dismissal of this action, in compliance with its previous screening order (ECF No. 11). Although Plaintiff 

makes some allegations about his medical treatment at CSATF in this motion, it does not appear these 

allegations were intended to be Plaintiff’s amended complaint, and it appears he intended to submit a separate 

document with amended complaint allegations. As noted, the Court did not find any such attachment in 

Plaintiff’s filing.

Case 1:15-cv-00614-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiff further asserts that Dr. Igbinosa has raised her voice at him, refused to review a study 

he attempted to provide her about a cure for Valley Fever, and made false statements in medical 

reports concerning Plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed a complaint with the State Medical Board of California. 

Plaintiff also asserts that on October 5, 2015, he fell after Dr. Igbinosa instructed him to walk to his 

unit without any mobility aids, and she set an appointment with a physical therapist. Dr. Igbinosa also 

informed Plaintiff at a chronic care appointment that his Hepatitis-C reoccurred at a score of 1.27, but 

because this is below 3.25, the qualification score, it can’t be helped. 

A. Standard

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities 

so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions 

until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 

395, 101 S. Ct. 1830, 68 L. Ed. 2d 175 (1981). “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.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S. Ct. 365, 

374, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). “[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.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S. Ct. 1865, 138 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1997) 

(quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as a preliminary matter, the court must 

have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S. 

Ct. 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of 

Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S. Ct. 752, 70 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1982). If the court does 

not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. Lyons, 

461 U.S. at 102. Thus, “[a] federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction 

over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the 

rights of persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. United States Immigration Serv., 753 F.2d 719, 727 

(9th Cir. 1985).

Case 1:15-cv-00614-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 5
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 pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in 

general. Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 491–93, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1 

(2009); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court’s jurisdiction is 

limited to the parties in this action and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. 

Summers, 555 U.S. at 491–93; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 

B. Analysis

Although not entirely clear, it appears Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction against the staff

at CSATF related to his medical treatment and possibly regarding the administrative appeals process. 

However, Plaintiff has not met the requirements for this relief. 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s 

complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state 

a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

In this matter, Plaintiff’s most-recent amended complaint has been screened and the Court 

determined that he has not yet stated any cognizable claims. No defendant has been ordered served,

and no defendant has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks personal jurisdiction 

over the prison officials at CSATF, and it cannot issue an order requiring them to take any action. 

Further, Plaintiff is now housed at the California Men’s Colony, and is no longer incarcerated 

at CSATF. As a result, his claim for injunctive relief against the medical staff or officials employed at 

CSATF is moot. See Holt v. Stockman, 2012 WL 259938, *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012) (a prisoner’s 

claim for injunctive relief is rendered moot when he is transferred from the institution whose 

employees he seeks to enjoin); see also Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 n. 5 (9th Cir. 

2007). 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary 

injunction (ECF No. 12), be DENIED. 

///

Case 1:15-cv-00614-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 5
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

These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual findings” on appeal. Wilkerson 

v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 

1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00614-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 08/15/16 Page 5 of 5