Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01449/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01449-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL ENRIQUE DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. OSMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01449-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER

THAT PLAINTIFF SUBMIT AN 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS OR THE FILING FEE WITHIN 

THIRTY DAYS OF THIS ORDER’S 

ENTRY

SCREENING ORDER THAT THE 

COMPLAINT IS DEFICIENT AND 

OFFERING LEAVE TO AMEND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE 

DENIED

ECF No. 1

Plaintiff brought this action by filing a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary 

restraining order, ECF No. 1, without paying the filing fee or submitting an application to proceed 

in forma pauperis. I construe that motion as the operative complaint. After screening it, I find 

that it fails to comply with federal pleading standards by containing multiple unrelated claims 

Case 2:23-cv-01449-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 01/12/24 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

27

28

2

against more than one defendant and for want of organization. I will grant plaintiff leave to 

amend. I will also recommend that his motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary 

injunction, ECF No. 1, be denied. 

I. Screening Order

A. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

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

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Case 2:23-cv-01449-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 01/12/24 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

27

28

3

B. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that numerous defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to 

adequate medical care. He claims that two nurse defendants, Miller and Griffis, failed to offer 

adequate wound care for injuries to his foot. ECF No. 1 at 2. He alleges that, on some separate 

occasion, another pair of nurse defendants named Bangaru and Fisher, along with a physician 

named Lee, failed to re-order treatment for the same wound. Id. Plaintiff claims that this failure 

is attributable to a campaign of retaliation that Fisher and Griffis have perpetrated against him for 

internal complaints he has made against them. Id. at 1-2. 

Separately, plaintiff alleges that his Eighth Amendment rights have been violated by the 

failure of medical staff to provide him with incontinence supplies. Id. at 2. This claim appears 

unrelated to his allegations concerning wound care. The only potential link is the vague 

allegation that the failure to provide him with supplies was also retaliation from Fisher, but the 

basis for the retaliation is distinct: He alleges that Fisher is retaliating against him because she is 

friendly with another nurse, Torres, who violated his HIPAA rights. Id. I cannot tell if plaintiff is 

bringing any claim against Torres in this complaint, however. In any event, this claim, insofar as 

it is predicated on a different failure to provide medical care and a different retaliatory motive, is 

insufficiently related to his other claim to proceed in the same action. Unrelated claims against 

multiple defendants belong in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 

2007). 

On a broader note, plaintiff’s complaint lacks organization, and it is at times difficult to 

tell how many defendants and claims are at issue. Plaintiff will be sent a complaint form, and he 

is encouraged to use it in drafting his amended complaint. Additionally, plaintiff devotes 

significant language to alleging that he is in imminent danger of serious harm. ECF No. 1 at 5-6. 

Such a showing is relevant to a “three-striker” who still wishes to proceed in forma pauperis, but 

plaintiff has not yet sought leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. 

Due to the complaint’s lack of organization and joinder of unrelated claims, I will direct 

him to file an amended complaint. He is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the 

current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en 

Case 2:23-cv-01449-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 01/12/24 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

27

28

4

banc). The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer to the 

appropriate case number.

II. Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff asks that injunctive relief issue directing that wound care, as directed by Dr. Lee, 

by provided, that defendants Griffis and Fisher be investigated, that he be granted single-cell 

status, and that a member of the medical staff named Amy Magaruh be investigated for failing to 

prevent her subordinates’ misconduct. ECF No. 1 at 7. I recommend that this motion be denied. 

Plaintiff has identified the requisite factors set forth in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense 

Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), but he has failed to show that he will suffer irreparable harm without 

preliminary injunctive relief. Absent such a showing, his motion must be denied. See Holston v. 

Rosa, No. 2:20-cv-01076-KJM-CKD-P, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97147, *23 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 

2021) (“Absent irreparable harm, a TRO is not warranted and the court finds it unnecessary to 

address the remaining factors.”). 

First, only the failure to provide wound care implicates irreparable harm. It does not 

appear that the other requested relief—investigations of medical defendants and granting of single 

cell-status—would prevent any irreparable harm that has been alleged. With respect to the 

immediate provision of wound care, I find that plaintiff has failed to show that he will suffer 

irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. He has offered no medical documents or other 

evidence indicating that, without the specific wound care regimen proposed by Dr. Lee, he will 

suffer irreparable harm. The only medical evidence attached to the complaint are photographs of 

plaintiff’s feet, id. at 22-26, and he admits that these photographs are from 2022 and months out 

of date compared to the allegations at issue, id. at 2. He does reference the possibility of infection 

and amputation, but there is no evidence offered that would raise that threat beyond the 

speculative level. Plaintiff’s burden is especially high where, as here, he seeks issuance of an ex 

parte temporary restraining order. See Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 

1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that a temporary restraining order may issue ex parte only if it 

clearly appears that immediate and irreparable harm will occur in its absence and emphasizing 

that “our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable 

Case 2:23-cv-01449-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 01/12/24 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

27

28

5

notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted to both sides of a dispute”). Accordingly, 

I recommend that his motion for preliminary injunctive relief be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff should file an amended

complaint and tender the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. If he

does not, I will recommend this action be dismissed.

2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form and an

application to proceed in forma pauperis form with this order. 

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, 

ECF No. 1, be DENIED. 

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 fourteen 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 response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 11, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01449-DAD-JDP Document 12 Filed 01/12/24 Page 5 of 5