Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02410/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02410-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA CLARK, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2410 FCD KJM PS

vs.

JOHN REA,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended

motion for injunctive relief. The matter was referred to the undersigned by minute order filed

December 14, 2005. It is not clear from plaintiff’s pleadings whether she seeks a temporary

restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or a permanent injunction. It appears, however, that

plaintiff seeks an order directing defendants to authorize immediate spinal fusion surgery for

plaintiff under the California Workers’ Compensation system. The court will construe the

motion as one for preliminary injunctive relief. 

To prevail on a motion for preliminary injunction, the moving party must show

either a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that

serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the movant’s favor. See

Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 700 (9th Cir. 1997); Oakland Tribune,

Case 2:05-cv-02410-FCD-KJM Document 12 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 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 1

 All subsequent cites to exhibits are to those attached to plaintiff’s memorandum.

2

Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). The two formulations

represent two points on a sliding scale with the focal point being the degree of irreparable injury

shown. Oakland Tribune, 762 F.2d at 1376. “Under any formulation of the test, plaintiff must

demonstrate that there exists a significant threat of irreparable injury.” Id. In the absence of a

significant showing of possible irreparable harm, the court need not reach the issue of likelihood

of success on the merits. Id.

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a significant degree of irreparable injury inasmuch as

the letter dated September 21, 2005 from Dr. Tepper, an orthopedic spinal expert, indicates that

the surgery plaintiff seeks by way of injunctive relief is an elective cervical spine reconstruction. 

See Exhibit 8 to Mem. Supp. Mot. for Injunctive Relief .1 Dr. Tepper confirms his conclusions

in his letter dated November 9, 2005. Id. If surgery is elective, it is by definition not of such an

urgent nature that irreparable injury would occur if not immediately performed. Plaintiff has had

ongoing problems arising out of her industrial injury, which occurred in 1994, but fails to

demonstrate why the surgery she seeks now by way of injunctive relief is emergent.

The likelihood of success on the merits also appears dubious. Plaintiff apparently

has an ongoing workers’ compensation case regarding the injuries giving rise to plaintiff’s claims

in the instant federal action. See Exhibit 7. The gravamen of plaintiff’s claim for injunctive

relief goes to the heart of plaintiff’s claims in her workers’ compensation case. It thus appears

this court should abstain from hearing plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief under the principles

of Burford abstention. See Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943). Moreover, plaintiff

previously has filed an action in state court alleging claims arising out of the same conduct

grounding the instant federal action, and obtained an award directing the provision of medical

care as necessary to “cure or relieve” the effects of her injury. See Exhibits 1-6. It thus also

appears the instant action may be barred under the principles of res judicata. Further, although

Case 2:05-cv-02410-FCD-KJM Document 12 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 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

3

plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges claims under federal civil rights statutes, two of the named

defendants, an attorney and a claims adjuster, do not appear to be state actors and therefore are

not amenable to suit for violation of plaintiff’s civil rights; the claims adjuster appears to be the

primary object of the motion for preliminary injunctive relief. See, e.g., Arnold v. International

Business Machines Corp., 637 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff also fails to allege with

specificity the causal link between defendant Rea, acting director of the Department of Industrial

Relations, and the claimed constitutional violations. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th

Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941

(1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in

civil rights violations are insufficient to state a claim. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Finally, plaintiff has failed to comply with all of the procedural requirements set

forth in Local Rule 65-231.

For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s

December 8, 2005 amended motion for injunctive relief be denied.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02410-FCD-KJM Document 12 Filed 12/16/05 Page 3 of 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

4

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten 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 five 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: December 16, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02410-FCD-KJM Document 12 Filed 12/16/05 Page 4 of 4