Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02021/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02021-1/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

27

28

- 1 - 3:11-CV-02021-LAB-BLM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL PORTER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 3:11-CV-02021-LABBLM

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

vs.

LS MCEWAN, WARDEN; GARCIA,

REGISTERED NURSE; MITCHELL,

REGISTERED NURSE; CORREA, SUP.

REGISTERED NURSE,

Defendants.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Samuel Porter, a prisoner in state custody, is requesting a preliminary

injunction, though it is unclear what he wants enjoined. His request alleges that the prison

staff and culture are oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical, but the Court cannot enjoin

oppression, corruption, and tyranny generally. The most sense the Court can make of

Porter’s request is this: He believes he has tapeworms (in fact, he heard one scream), and

he believes the prison doctors are refusing to accurately diagnose him. In fact, Porter

alleges that they ran X-rays that found no tapeworms and then used the X-rays to taunt and

ridicule him. Porter wants the doctors to submit to polygraph tests, and he wants the Court

to order that a California Attorney General or a “federal doctor from a nearby federal

institution” oversee a proper X-ray.

Case 3:11-cv-02021-LAB-BLM Document 7 Filed 01/27/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 3:11-CV-02021-LAB-BLM

II. Discussion

In order for the Court to grant a preliminary injunction, Porter must show: (1) a

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm absent the

preliminary injunction; (3) the balance of equities favors him; and (4) the injunction is in the

public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

If Porter cannot demonstrate the likelihood of irreparable harm absent the preliminary

injunction, the Court does not need to address the other three elements. See Ctr. For Food

Safety v. Vilsack, 636 F. 3d 1166, 1174 (9 Circ.2011). th

Porter alleges he will suffer irreparable harm to his central nervous system if he is not

treated for the tapeworm(s) he believes he has. He does not sufficiently show, however, that

he actually has tapeworms, or that there is any credibility to his accusation that the prison

doctors are deliberately misdiagnosing him. He also fails to explain how a preliminary

injunction ordering polygraph tests—assuming the Court could even grant such relief in a

preliminary injunction—is likely to prevent irreparable harm. 

III. Conclusion

Porter fails to show that he is likely to be irreparably harmed absent the injunctive

relief he seeks. On this failure alone (although the Court would also find he has failed to

satisfy the other Winter factors), his request for a preliminary injunction DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 24, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02021-LAB-BLM Document 7 Filed 01/27/12 Page 2 of 2