Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02246/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-02246-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JOEL S. MAGNUSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

PERVAIZ AKHTER, M.D.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-2246-MHM-PHX

ORDER

Currently before the Court are Joel Magnuson’s (“Plaintiff’) Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. #3) and Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. (Dkt. #4).

Based on Plaintiff’s representations of poverty and lack of income, the Court will

grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

On December 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order, in which he moves the Court to issue a temporary restraining order transferring

him out of the Arizona State Hospital and prohibiting the Arizona State Hospital staff

from involuntarily medicating him. (Dkt. #3). Plaintiff alleges that the medication he

receives “makes [him] slow and lacidasical [sic] unable to fight off attacks at state

hospital.” (Id., p.1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on November 10, 2008, he was

stabbed repeatedly by two fellow patients at the hospital, after Dr. Akhter refused

Plaintiff’s request “to be secured in a safe unit for purpose of protection of the two above

Case 2:08-cv-02246-MHM Document 8 Filed 01/27/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

mentioned patients.” (Id.; Dkt. #1, p.2). Plaintiff states that he now suffers permanent

and visible scaring on his face. (Id.). As a result, his Complaint asserts two counts of

negligence against Defendant Akhter for involuntary medication and failure to

protect/transfer Plaintiff out of the Wick 4 Unit of the Arizona State Hospital. (Dkt. #1). 

Plaintiff states that he noticed Defendant of this action on January 20, 2009. (Dkt. #7).

Temporary restraining orders are governed by the same standard applicable to

preliminary injunctions.” Trachsel v. Buchholz, 2008 WL 2383080, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

2008). The Ninth Circuit has set forth two sets of criteria for determining whether to

grant preliminary injunctive relief:

Under the traditional test, a plaintiff must show: (1) a strong likelihood of

success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if

preliminary relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the

plaintiff, and (4) advancement of the public interest (in certain cases). The

alternative test requires that a plaintiff demonstrate 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.

Taylor v. Westly, 488 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 2007). In addition, “[b]ecause injunctive

relief prior to trial is a harsh and extraordinary remedy, it is to be granted sparingly and

only in cases where the issues are clear and well defined and the plaintiff has established

a reasonable certainty of prevailing at trial.” Watermark, Inc. v. United Stations, Inc.,

219 U.S.P.Q. 31, 32-33 (C.D. Cal. 1982). 

Here, Plaintiff fails to make a sufficient showing regarding the possibility of

irreparable injury. Although Plaintiff alleges that he previously suffered injury, Plaintiff

does not allege any imminent or future injury. In addition, it is unclear from Plaintiff’s

Complaint as to why he is being held at the Arizona State Hospital. That hospital is selfdescribed as treating “the most severely mentally ill persons in our state.” See Arizona

Department of Health Services, Arizona State Hospital, “Welcomes You ...,”

http:www.azdhs.gov/azsh. The Court cannot adequately assess the merits of this action

or the public interest without obtaining information concerning Plaintiff’s confinement at

the Arizona State Hospital. The allegations contained in the Complaint regarding

Case 2:08-cv-02246-MHM Document 8 Filed 01/27/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Defendant’s alleged negligence are insufficient to support a finding of probable success

on the merits in Plaintiff’s favor. Likewise, without knowing the circumstances

surrounding Plaintiff’s placement or transfer into the Arizona State Hospital or the Wick

4 Unit of the Hospital, and the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s medication, the

Court cannot address the issue of whether serious questions have been raised. Therefore,

the Court finds that a Temporary Restraining Order is inappropriate at this time.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining

Order (Dkt. #3) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis (Dkt. #4) is GRANTED, without prepayment of costs or fees or the

necessity of giving security therefore. Service by waiver or of the summons and

complaint on the defendants by the U.S. Marshal or his authorized representative shall be

at government expense.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall have twenty (20) days from

the date of service by waiver or of the summons and complaint by the U.S. Marshal or his

authorized representative to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

DATED this 26th day of January, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-02246-MHM Document 8 Filed 01/27/09 Page 3 of 3