Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01503/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01503-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney Brooks
Plaintiff
Harold Tate
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAROLD TATE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION BE DENIED

ECF No. 15

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 14 DAYS

I. Background

Plaintiff Rodney Brooks (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed August 9, 2012, against Defendant Harold Tate for retaliation in 

violation of the First Amendment and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment. On August 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. 

ECF No. 15. On November 20, 2012, Defendant Tate filed an opposition. ECF No. 28.1 The matter 

is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).2

 

1 There was an issue with regards to whether Plaintiff wished to proceed with the pending motion for 

preliminary injunction. On October 31, 2012, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wished to proceed with the August 9, 

2012 motion. Defendant’s opposition was submitted within twenty-one days after Plaintiff notified the Court and the 

parties of his intention. In the interest of justice, the Court deems Defendant’s opposition timely submitted.

2 On December 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed his reply. ECF No. 32. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff’s reply 

is untimely. The Court out of an abundance of caution has considered the arguments that Plaintiff raised in reply and 

finds that they would not affect the Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 02/15/13 Page 1 of 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

2

II. Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff requests that he be examined by a neurologist for acute, spasmodic muscular and 

nerve pain. Plaintiff contends that he is experiencing loss of muscle bulk, flashing lights in the 

corner of Plaintiff’s vision, constant muscle twitching, muscle weakness, cramps and spasms, loss of 

balance, numbing and burning pain in Plaintiff’s legs and arms, and excruciating abdominal pain.

A. Legal Standard

“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 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted). 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).

“’A preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates that serious questions 

going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiff’s favor.’” 

Alliance for the Wilde Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Lands 

Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2008)). Serious questions going to the merits and a 

hardship balance tipped sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuing an injunction, assuming the 

other two elements of Winter are also met. Id. at 1132.

For preliminary injunctive relief with respect to prison conditions,

preliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than 

necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the 

least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm. The court shall give substantial 

weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice 

system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the principles of comity set 

out in paragraph (1)(B) in tailoring any preliminary relief

18 U.S.C. 1326(a)(2).

B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Plaintiff contends that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim, contending that there 

are sufficient facts which demonstrate that Defendant Tate was aware of the extent of Plaintiff’s pain 

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 02/15/13 Page 2 of 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

3

and refused to provide Plaintiff with any effective pain relief medication or examination by a 

neurology specialist. Pl.’s Mot. Prelim. Inj. 4:26-5:5.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has received numerous exams and various treatments. 

Based on the submitted documents, Plaintiff has received several types of treatment since 2010. 

Def.’s Opp’n 2:8-5:4, ECF No. 28-1, Exs. pp. 4-54, ECF No. 28-2. Plaintiff was offered, but

refused surgery on his left knee. Plaintiff has received several prescriptions for pain. Plaintiff 

complained that his prescription for tramadol was changed. Defendant Tate contends that he 

intended to wean Plaintiff off of Tramadol. Plaintiff stated that NSAIDs cause him pain. As of July 

2012, Plaintiff was prescribed Tylenol for his pain, which Plaintiff contends is not effective. 

However, it is unclear if Defendant Tate is aware that Tylenol is not effective for Plaintiff’s pain 

management.

The rationale for requesting a neurologist appears to originate from a physician issuing a 

referral for a neurology examination on June 4, 2012. However, the referral was never designated as 

an emergent or urgent referral. Later, blood test samples were collected on June 25, 2012 and July 5, 

2012. The blood tests indicated that Plaintiff’s levels of creatine kinase were high. Plaintiff 

contends that Defendant Tate does not specialize in the treatment of neuropathy disease. However, 

Plaintiff has provided no argument that Defendant Tate cannot treat this issue.

The Court does not find that Plaintiff has demonstrated the likelihood of success on the 

merits as to his need for examination by a neurology specialist. Plaintiff raises at most a difference 

of opinion with regards to the treatment between Plaintiff and Defendant Tate, which does not rise to 

the level of deliberate indifference. Toguchi v Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2006).

C. Irreparable Harm

Plaintiff has not demonstrated irreparable harm. Plaintiff’s condition includes acute, 

spasmodic muscular and nerve pain. Plaintiff contends that his condition will become progressively 

worse without a neurologist consultation. As stated previously, however, Plaintiff has not 

demonstrated how Defendant Tate has failed to treat Plaintiff, other than to not refer Plaintiff to a 

neurology specialist at the time the motion was filed. Plaintiff has received prescriptions for various 

pain medications and physical therapy. The Court does not find that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable 

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 02/15/13 Page 3 of 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

4

harm without a grant of preliminary injunctive relief.

D. Lack Of Equities In Plaintiff’s Favor And Relief Serving The Public Interest

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of success on the 

merits and irreparable harm, the balance of hardships does not weigh in Plaintiff’s favor. The 

medical personnel at Plaintiff’s prison would be required to refer Plaintiff to an outside consultation 

without providing prison physicians the opportunity to first treat the matter.

Preliminary injunctive relief would not be in the public interest. The treatment of prisoners 

in compliance with the Eighth Amendment furthers the public interest. As stated previously, 

however, Plaintiff has not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or the 

balance of equities in his favor.

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for 

preliminary injunction, filed August 9, 2012, should be denied.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections 

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

Recommendations.” A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a party’s 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:11-cv-01503-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 02/15/13 Page 4 of 4