Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01279/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01279-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Upon screening, the Court dismissed 22 other individuals as Defendants (Doc. #13).

2

The complete background facts are set forth in the Court’s prior Order at Document

#127. 

WO JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karl Louis Guillen, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Gerald Thompson, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1279-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Karl Louis Guillen brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Dora Schriro, former Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) Director, and

Ronolfo Macabuhay, Lewis Complex physician (Doc. #11).1

 Plaintiff alleged that

Defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating Plaintiff’s pain and symptoms associated

with postherpetic neuralgia (id. at 3-3A).2

 

Before the Court are two of Plaintiff’s motions seeking preliminary injunctive relief:

“Motion for Order: Returning Journal & Legal Book” (Doc. #143) and “Request for

Emergency 3-Judge Panel, Release Order, and Federal Receivership” (Doc. #154). 

The Court will deny both motions.

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 187 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 6
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 -

I. Plaintiff’s Motions

A. Motion for Order: Returning Journal & Legal Book

In his Motion for Order, Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court directing Defendant

Ryan, current ADC Director, and his agents to return Plaintiff’s journal, which includes a log

of 2008-2009 events related to medical visits and officer information (Doc. #143). Plaintiff

also seeks the return of his “Jailhouse Manual,” which provides legal citations and case law

information specific to prisoner issues (id.).

Defendants did not file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Order. 

B. Request for Emergency 3-Judge Panel, Release Order, and 

Federal Receivership

1. Plaintiff’s Motion

Plaintiff requests an order from the Court placing the ADC healthcare system under

federal receivership on the grounds that severe overcrowding and lack of staff have left

Defendants unable to provide adequate medical care to Plaintiff (Doc. #154). He also seeks

an order to convene a 3-judge panel, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626, to issue a prisoner release

order so that he may be released on a medical furlough (id. at 5-6).

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have misrepresented to the Court the serious danger

posed by overcrowding (id. at 2). He maintains that ADC is 11.1% overcapacity and cannot

meet basic standards for chronic and emergency medical care (id.). Plaintiff contends that,

as a result, he has not received refills of prescription medication or treatment for high blood

pressure, and other inmates “are dying each week” due to delays and denials of health

services (id. at 2-3, 5). Plaintiff further contends that Defendants have violated their own

policies related to transportation and custody placement (id. at 3-4). He states that the

supermax isolation unit he is housed in presents an increasingly unbearable strain and

aggravates his serious medical condition (id. at 4). Plaintiff concludes that he must be

released and provided a medical furlough (id. at 5). 

//

// 

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 187 Filed 03/25/10 Page 2 of 6
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 -

2. Defendants’ Response 

In response, Defendants assert that under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3)(C), an applicant

cannot request a 3-judge court unless there is a previous court order for less intrusive relief

and a showing that the previous court order failed to remedy the deprivation (Doc. #172 at

2). Defendants state that here, there has been no previous court order for relief; thus,

Plaintiff’s request for a 3-judge panel does not meet the statutory requirements (id.).

3. Plaintiff’s Reply

Plaintiff replies and argues that Defendants did not respond to his claims and evidence

of overcrowding and failure to treat his high blood pressure (Doc. #175). Plaintiff requests

reconsideration of the Court’s previous denials of injunctive relief for emergency medical

treatment (id. at 2). He asserts that the Court has been repeatedly presented with “frauds”

from Defendants related to medical care and alleged gambling operations (id. at 3). Plaintiff

claims that Defendants are withholding medical evidence from his October 27, 2009 hospital

evaluation that reflects medical personnel’s concern over Plaintiff’s health (id.). Plaintiff

cites to his Motion for Summary Judgment and Statement of Facts to support his contention

that necessary medical treatment is being denied (id. at 3-4). And he repeats his assertions

that Defendants violate their own policies governing medical care, transfers, and custody

issues (id. at 5). 

II. Preliminary Injunction Standard

The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo or to prevent

irreparable injury pending the resolution of the underlying claim. Sierra On-line, Inc. v.

Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984). To obtain a preliminary

injunction, the movant must show “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 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Defense

Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and

drastic remedy and “one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing,

carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 187 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 6
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 -

curiam) (quoting 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure

§ 2948, pp. 129-130 (2d ed. 1995)). 

In attempting to establish either eligibility for an injunction or that a party is not

entitled to injunctive relief, the parties may rely on developments that postdate the pleadings

and pretrial motions. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 846 (1994). 

III. Analysis

A. Motion for Order

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order simply sets out his request for the return of his journal

and “Jailhouse Manual” (Doc. #143). Plaintiff fails to allege any facts demonstrating that

an injunction in warranted. There is no showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits,

likely to suffer irreparable harm, or that the balance of equities tips in his favor. Winter, 129

S. Ct. at 374. Consequently, his Motion for Order will be denied.

B. Request for 3-Judge Panel, Release Order, and Federal Receivership

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3), a court cannot enter a prisoner release order unless

(i) a court has previously entered an order for less intrusive relief that has

failed to remedy the deprivation of the Federal right sought to be remedied

through the prisoner release order; and

(ii) the defendant has had a reasonable amount of time to comply with the

previous court orders.

In this case, the Court has not previously entered an order for relief; thus, it cannot

issue a release order.

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for an order placing the ADC healthcare system

under federal receivership, Plaintiff has not made the required showing for such a

widespread, mandatory injunction. There is heightened scrutiny where the movant seeks to

alter rather than maintain the status quo. Dahl v. HEM Pharms. Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403

(9th Cir. 1993) (holding that mandatory, as opposed to prohibitory, injunctions are subject

to heightened scrutiny). The Ninth Circuit has held that this type of mandatory injunctive

relief is disfavored and should be denied unless the facts and law clearly favor the movant.

Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1114 (9th Cir. 1979) (citations omitted). 

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 187 Filed 03/25/10 Page 4 of 6
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 -

To support his claims that “[i]nmates are dying each week,” and that overcrowding

has led to “inmate suffering, . . . suicides [and] deaths,” Plaintiff cites to paragraphs 12 and

14 in his Statement of Facts filed in support of his summary judgment motion (Doc. #154 at

5, citing “PSOF ¶ 12, 14”). But these paragraphs in his Statement of Facts do not mention

inmate suicides or deaths; rather, they set forth that Plaintiff and other inmates have to wait

months for care and Plaintiff has not received any pain medications for over a year (Doc.

#162 ¶¶ 12, 14). Even taking these statements as true, they are insufficient to support a

drastic, mandatory measure such as appointing a federal receivership to oversee prison

healthcare. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(B) (preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly

drawn and the least intrusive means necessary).

Moreover, Plaintiff has recently filed a declaration specifically stating that in January

and February 2010, he received epidural injections for pain, and he is currently taking

Methadone for pain, as well as Gabapentin—an anti-seizure medication—and he receives

Lidocaine patches for topical skin pain (Doc. #176 at 1-2). On this record, Plaintiff cannot

show that he is currently likely to suffer an irreparable injury. See Am. Trucking, 559 F.3d

at 1052 (injunction not warranted “merely because it is possible that there will be an

irreparable injury to the plaintiff; it must be likely that there will be”). He therefore is not

entitled to injunctive relief or an order for a federal receivership. 

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of a prior Order related to medical-injunctive

relief is improperly raised in his reply memorandum. Arguments or requests for relief

presented for the first time in the reply will not be considered. See Cuevas-Gaspar v.

Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013, 1021 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court notes that Plaintiff submitted

a separate motion for reconsideration (Doc. #129), which is addressed in a separate Order.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s “Motion for

Order: Returning Journal & Legal Book” (Doc. #143) and “Request for Emergency 3-Judge

Panel, Release Order, and Federal Receivership” (Doc. #154).

(2) Plaintiff’s “Motion for Order: Returning Journal & Legal Book” (Doc. #143) and

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 187 Filed 03/25/10 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

“Request for Emergency 3-Judge Panel, Release Order, and Federal Receivership” (Doc.

#154) are denied.

DATED this 24th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01279-MHM Document 187 Filed 03/25/10 Page 6 of 6