Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00381/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00381-1/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

1

OK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN DEXTER BROOKS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0381 LKK PAN P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 23, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. 

Plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and need for exercise, proper

sanitation and ventilation. Plaintiff is confined with a cellmate in a cell designed for one inmate. 

In his complaint, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief requiring he be housed in a single cell and asks

for money damages. 

On February 23, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff

seeks an order enjoining the defendant from double-celling plaintiff due to his medical history,

frequent lockdowns and the prison’s new flush valve water conservation plan. The court will

first address plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief.

The legal principles applicable to a request for preliminary injunctive relief are

well established. “The traditional equitable criteria for granting preliminary injunctive relief are

(1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-00381-LKK -PAN Document 10 Filed 05/11/06 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

2

if the preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4)

advancement of the public interest (in certain cases).” Dollar Rent A Car v. Travelers Indem.

Co., 774 F.2d 1371, 1374 (9th Cir. 1985). The criteria are traditionally treated as alternative

tests. “Alternatively, a court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party demonstrates

‘either a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or

that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.’” Martin

v. International Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 675 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting William Inglis &

Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 526 F.2d 86, 88 (9th Cir. 1975)). 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, 740 F.2d at 675).

A prisoner has no protected liberty interest in remaining in a particular prison or

facility within a prison, even though a transfer entails the imposition of more disagreeable

conditions of confinement. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530-31 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing

Meachum v. Fano, supra, 427 U.S. at 224-25; Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1982)).

Double celling in and of itself is not unconstitutional. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452

U.S. 337, 347-48 (1981); Toussaint v. Yockey, 722 F.2d 1490, 1492 (9th Cir.1984). Although an

eighth amendment violation may not be predicated on a totality of conditions at prison, those

conditions may provide a useful context for evaluating the severity of overcrowding. See

Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1246-47. 

The denial of an opportunity for regular outdoor exercise violates the eighth

amendment. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1259 (9th Cir.1982); Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d

Case 2:06-cv-00381-LKK -PAN Document 10 Filed 05/11/06 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

3

189, 199 (9th Cir.1979) (confinement of prisoners with almost total absence of outdoor exercise

was cruel and unusual punishment). Such recreation, however, can be temporarily denied when

prison conditions warrant. Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1258. A short-term denial of exercise based on

security reasons does not violate the eighth amendment. Hayward v. Procunier, 629 f.2d 599,

603 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 937 (1981).

Inadequate “ventilation and air flow” violates the Eighth Amendment if it

“undermines the health of inmates and the sanitation of the penitentiary.” Hoptowit v. Spellman,

753 F.2d 779, 784 (9th Cir.1985).

While plaintiff’s civil rights may have been violated by his cell confinement for

18 months without any outdoor exercise, plaintiff concedes that he is currently receiving outdoor

exercise two days a week due to a control yard movement program. (Motion at 7.) Thus, the

court finds it inappropriate to grant plaintiff injunctive relief prior to an adjudication of the merits

herein. However, this denial will be without prejudice should plaintiff again be deprived of his

twice a week outdoor exercise. 

Plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate irreparable injury. Plaintiff states the

double celling and two flush system subjects him to ventilation issues which negatively impact

his chronic asthma. However, plaintiff states he has an inhaler which he uses every day. 

Plaintiff does not allege that the inhaler is ineffective in dealing with the transient problem of

toilets being prevented from being flushed for a period of time. 

Finally, plaintiff cannot demonstrate success on the merits on this record at this

time because plaintiff concedes he has failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit, as

required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

“Section 1997e(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides:

No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under

[42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined

in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00381-LKK -PAN Document 10 Filed 05/11/06 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

4

This exhaustion requirement is mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).”

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516,

524 (2002). Exhaustion must precede the filing of the complaint and that compliance with the

statute is not achieved by satisfying the exhaustion requirement during the course of an action. 

McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199. 

 California’s Department of Corrections provides a four-step

grievance process for prisoners who seek review of an

administrative decision or perceived mistreatment. Within fifteen

working days of “the event or decision being appealed,” the inmate

must ordinarily file an “informal” appeal, through which “the

appellant and staff involved in the action or decision attempt to

resolve the grievance informally.” Cal.Code Regs., tit. 15, §§

3084.5(a), 3084.6(c). [Footnote omitted.] If the issue is not resolved

during the informal appeal, the grievant next proceeds to the first

formal appeal level, usually conducted by the prison's Appeals

Coordinator. Id. §§ 3084.5(b), 3084.6(c). Next are the second level,

providing review by the institution's head or a regional parole

administrator, and the third level, in which review is conducted by a

designee of the Director of the Department of Corrections. 

[Footnote omitted.] Id. § 3084.5(e)(1)-(2).

Brown v. Valoff, at 929-30.

Here, plaintiff has not obtained a Director’s Level review of his grievance. 

“Plaintiff is in the process of exhausting all available administrative remedies.” (Complaint at 2.) 

Thus, while plaintiff may have a cognizable claim, he may not file a civil rights action in federal

court concerning that claim until he has exhausted his administrative remedies. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s February 23, 2006 motion for preliminary injunction be denied

without prejudice; and

2. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies.

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)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

Case 2:06-cv-00381-LKK -PAN Document 10 Filed 05/11/06 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

5

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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: May 10, 2006.

/001; broo0381.fte

Case 2:06-cv-00381-LKK -PAN Document 10 Filed 05/11/06 Page 5 of 5