Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01708/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01708-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:19-cv-1708-WQH-KSC

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PUNAOFO TSQUITO TILEI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF 

CORRECTION AND 

REHABILITATION; DR. DAVID 

CLAYTON; DR. PEYMAN 

SHAKIBA;

DR. SAHA; JASHUA N. DOROS; 

DOES

1- 10, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-1708-WQH-KSC

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Emergency Request for Preliminary Injunction 

filed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 9).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 7, 2019, Plaintiff Punaofo Tsquito Tilei, a state prisoner proceeding 

pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF. No. 1). On September 

Case 3:19-cv-01708-TWR-KSC Document 25 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:19-cv-1708-WQH-KSC

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

7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF. No. 2). 

On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 5). On 

September 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma 

Pauperis. (ECF. No. 7). 

On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Request for Preliminary 

Injunction. (ECF No. 9).

On October 17, 2019, this Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s Motions to 

Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 7) and denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint 

Counsel (ECF No. 5). (ECF No. 10). 

On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s 

October 17, 2019 Order Denying Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 13). On December 

11, 2019, this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF 

No. 18). 

On December 26, 2019, Defendants David Clayton, M.D.; Peyman Shakiba, M.D.;

and Sajib Saha, M.D. filed an Answer. (ECF No. 19). On January 22, 2020, Defendants 

Clayton, Shakiba, and Saha filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Emergency 

Request for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 22). On February 14, 2020 Plaintiff filed a 

Reply. (ECF No. 24). 

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff “adequate medical care 

... and reasonable accommodations to his serious medical needs and disabilities” from June 

2019 to August 5, 2019. (ECF No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Clayton,

Shakiba, and Saha are physicians at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”). 

See id. at 3. Plaintiff brings claims for (1) violation of the Eighth Amendment (deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs) against all Defendants, (2) violation of California 

Government Code § 845.6 against all Defendants, and (3) intentional infliction of severe 

emotional distress against all Defendants except Defendant California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation. See id. at 14-19. Plaintiff seeks statutory, compensatory, 

Case 3:19-cv-01708-TWR-KSC Document 25 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:19-cv-1708-WQH-KSC

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

and punitive damages; equitable relief to permanently enjoin similar conduct by 

Defendants in the future; an emergency preliminary injunction; assignment of counsel; and 

attorney’s fees and costs. See id. at 19-20. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Saha failed to treat Plaintiff for his medical needs at 

RJD Triage Treatment Area on June 24, 2019. See id. at 5-6. The Complaint alleges that 

Plaintiff “semi fainted, tripped, fell and was seriously injured” on June 26, 2019. Id. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Clayton failed to treat Plaintiff for his medical needs at 

RJD Triage Treatment Area on June 27, 2019. See id. at 8. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 

Shakiba failed to treat Plaintiff for his medical needs at RJD on June 28, 2019. See id. at 

9. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Clayton refused to see Plaintiff for a scheduled medical 

appointment on July 22, 2019. See id. at 9-10. Plaintiff alleges that he was transported to 

RJD Triage Treatment Area but was ordered to be returned to his cell without treatment on 

July 29, 2019 and August 3, 2019. See id. at 10-11. 

Plaintiff alleges that he met with his regular primary care physician on August 5, 

2019. See id. at 11. Plaintiff alleges that the physician ordered Plaintiff to be transported 

to Tri-City Medical Center. See id. Plaintiff alleges that physicians at Tri-City Medical 

Center diagnosed Plaintiff with a “‘traumatic injury’ to his spine.” Id. Plaintiff alleges 

that he experiences “extreme and atrocious pain and distress” as a result of his medical 

conditions and the injury to his spine. Id. at 12. 

LEGAL STANDARD

To prevail on a motion for preliminary injunction, the moving party must establish 

(1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm 

in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and 

(4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Res. Defense Counsel, 

Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2009). The Ninth Circuit has also “articulated an alternate formulation 

of the Winter test, under which ‘serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance of 

hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary

injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury 

Case 3:19-cv-01708-TWR-KSC Document 25 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:19-cv-1708-WQH-KSC

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

and that the injunction is in the public interest.” Farris v. Seabrook, 677 F.3d 848, 864 

(9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th 

Cir. 2011)). 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for a court order mandating Defendants to provide immediate 

medical treatment and medication for muscle spasms and pain; reasonable 

accommodations for medical conditions and impairments; and referral to medical 

specialists. Defendants Clayton, Shakiba, and Saha contend that the Court should deny 

Plaintiff’s demands for stronger medications because Plaintiff is a known abuser of opiates 

and has been tested and found to be using illicit opiates while incarcerated. 

In order to prevail on this Emergency Request for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff 

must demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim. 

Where an inmate’s claim is one of inadequate medical care, the inmate must allege “acts 

or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). This “involves an examination of two 

elements: the seriousness of the prisoner’s medical need and the nature of the defendant’s 

response to that need.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled 

on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997). A 

medical need is serious “if the failure to treat the prisoner’s condition could result in further 

significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” McGuckin, 974 F.2d 

at 1059 (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). Indications of a serious medical need include 

“the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an individual’s daily 

activities.” Id. at 1059-60. By establishing the existence of a serious medical need, an 

inmate satisfies the objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. See

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).

In general, deliberate indifference may be shown when prison officials deny, delay, 

or intentionally interfere with a prescribed course of medical treatment, or it may be shown 

by the way in which prison medical officials provide necessary care. See Hutchinson v. 

Case 3:19-cv-01708-TWR-KSC Document 25 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:19-cv-1708-WQH-KSC

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, 838 F.2d 390, 393-94 (9th Cir. 1988). In order to support a claim that an

inmate’s civil rights have been abridged in terms of medical care, “the indifference to his 

medical needs must be substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical 

malpractice’ will not support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 

F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06).

Plaintiff’s claim that he is “likely to suffer ‘more’ irreparable harm or even death”

is unsupported by the medical records and declarations. (ECF No. 9 at 6). The August 5, 

2019 medical report states that “[a]t this time, it is determined that [Plaintiff] can be 

discharged” and that “[d]espite extensive testing we cannot find a life[-]threatening illness 

and consequently feel [Plaintiff is] safe to go home and rest.” (Ex. A to Pl.’s Emergency 

Request for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 9 at 13). The August 5, 2019 medical report 

states that Plaintiff has received Zofren for nausea, Valium for muscle relaxation, 

morphine, and Motrin. Id. at 12-13. Exhibits B and C to Plaintiff’s Emergency Request 

for Preliminary Injunction are medical records prior to June 2019. (Ex. B, C to Pl.’s 

Emergency Request for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 9 at 29-34). Exhibits D through 

H to Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Preliminary Injunction are declarations from 

inmates at RJD. (Ex. D-H to Pl.’s Emergency Request for Preliminary Injunction, ECF 

No. 9 at 36-50). Plaintiff has set forth insufficient facts to support the requested 

preliminary injunction against Defendants. Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief 

granting him medical treatment against Defendants is denied. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Preliminary 

Injunction (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.

Dated: February 19, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01708-TWR-KSC Document 25 Filed 02/19/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5