Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00081/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00081-2/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Shannon Sorrells is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to receive medical treatment as prescribed 

by two different physicians, filed February 11, 2016. (ECF No. 11.) 

I.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s motion essential seeks a preliminary injunction directing jail officials to provide 

medical treatment. Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a request for injunctive 

relief. “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. 

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 

preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 

suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 

SHANNON SORRELLS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE,

et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00081-DAD-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT

[ECF No. 11]

Case 1:16-cv-00081-DAD-SAB Document 13 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 4
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

favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20 (citations omitted). An injunction may 

only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 22 (citation omitted).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for preliminary 

injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it have before it 

an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); Valley Forge Christian 

Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471 (1982). If the Court 

does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter in question. 

Id. “[The] triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III’s caseor-controversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of 

establishing its existence.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04 (1998). 

Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, 

extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive 

means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.”

On February 12, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to amend, for 

failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 12.) In light of Plaintiff’s complaint being 

dismissed with leave to amend, there is no actual case or controversy before the Court at this time. 

Therefore, the Court lacks the jurisdiction to issue the orders sought by Plaintiff. Summers v. Earth 

Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009); Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009).

Even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction to issue Plaintiff’s requested relief, he has not 

met his burden as the moving party. As stated in the Court’s screening order, “[c]laims by pretrial 

detainees [such as Plaintiff here] are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, 

rather than the Eighth Amendment [, which applies to prisoners in custody pursuant to a judgment of 

conviction].” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). Where a plaintiff alleges 

inadequate medical care, however, “pretrial detainees’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment are 

comparable to prisoners’ rights under the Eighth Amendment, [so] we apply the same standards.” Id. 

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference to 

Case 1:16-cv-00081-DAD-SAB Document 13 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 4
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

an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled 

in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. 

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition 

could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that 

“the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing 

Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond 

to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 

F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind is one of subjective 

recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and 

quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 

In his motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court order the Fresno County jail to provide his 

Oxycodone for his pain. Despite Plaintiff’s opinions as to what the proper medical treatment is, there 

is no indication that Plaintiff is in immediate need of the treatment he seeks and is under significant 

threat of irreparable harm without the medication. Thus, Plaintiff has not made the showing required 

to meet his burden as the party moving for preliminary injunctive relief. 

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for an order to receive 

medical treatment must be DENIED.

This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days 

after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written objections with 

the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

///

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00081-DAD-SAB Document 13 Filed 02/12/16 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00081-DAD-SAB Document 13 Filed 02/12/16 Page 4 of 4