IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MICHAEL A. LUJAN, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 2:14-cv-01640-MO 

ORDER 

v. 

LINDA ANN GRUENWALD, et al., 

Defendants. 

MOSMAN, District Judge. 

Plaintiff in this prisoner civil rights case seeks a temporary 

restraining order and preliminary injunction pertaining to his 

medical care at the Two Rivers Correctional Institution as well as 

his ability to access the courts for purposes of litigating his 

state post-conviction relief ( "PCR") action. Specifically, 

petitioner seeks a court order requiring defendants to: 

(1) effectively manage his back and leg pain during the pendency of 

this case; (2) approve an MRI or CAT scan of his back; (3) refrain 

from denying him copies necessary for his state PCR action; and 

1 - ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-01640-MO Document 41 Filed 04/16/15 Page 1 of 6
(4) refrain from denying him envelopes for mailing documents that 

are necessary to support his PCR action. 

"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). A plaintiff may also qualify 

for a preliminary injunction by showing that there are serious 

questions going to the merits of his claim and that the balance of 

hardships tips sharply in his favor, so long as the other Winter 

factors are also met. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 

632 F.3d 1127. 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011). A request for a mandatory 

injunction seeking relief well beyond the status quo is disfavored 

and shall not be granted unless the facts and law clearly favor the 

moving party. Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 13 F.3d 1313, 1319-20 

(9th Cir. 1994). 

As an initial matter, plaintiff's request for preliminary 

injunctive relief pertaining to his ability to access the courts 

for the purpose of litigating his state PCR action is denied 

because it is apparent from his filings that he has appointed 

counsel to assist him with that action. Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction (#23), p. 3; see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 

(1996); United States v. Wilson, 690 F.2d 1267, 1272 (9th Cir. 

2 - ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-01640-MO Document 41 Filed 04/16/15 Page 2 of 6
1982) (the offer of court-appointed counsel is sufficient to 

satisfy an inmate's right of access to the courts) . 1 

With respect to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical claim, he 

must demonstrate that defendants have been deliberately indifferent 

to a serious medical need. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 

(9th Cir. 2000), 203 F.3d at 1131; Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 

F. 3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994). Deliberate indifference is shown 

only where an official "knows of and disregards an excessive risk 

of inmate health and safety II Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 

825, 835 (1994). A serious medical need exists if the failure to 

treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant 

injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Doty, 37 

F.3d at 546. 

Plaintiff has provided the court with a variety of documents 

showing that the defendants have: ( 1) taken an X-ray of plaintiff's 

back, showing no significant malady; (2) provided him with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to help manage his pain; and 

(3) suggested to plaintiff that his back pain will be alleviated 

through the use of the drugs provided as well as recommended 

weight-loss and exercise regimens. Exhibit 2 to Reply ( #38) ; 

Exhibit 16 to Reply (#38). While plaintiff asserts that defendants 

1 The court also notes that the Ninth Circuit has rejected 

any constitutional right to unlimited free photocopying. See 

Johnson v. Moore, 926 F.2d 921, 923 (9th Cir.1991), superseded on 

other grounds by Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517 (9th Cir. 1991); 

Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 1989). 

3 - ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-01640-MO Document 41 Filed 04/16/15 Page 3 of 6
should provide him with alternate medications, a difference of 

medical opinion between a prisoner and prison officials does not 

does not amount to a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Sanchez 

v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989); Shields v. Kunkel, 442 

F.2d 409, 410 (9th Cir1971); Mayfield v. Craven, 433 F.2d 873 (9th 

Cir. 1970); McKinney v. People of State of Cal., 427 F.2d 160 (9th 

Cir. 1970). Moreover, it does not appear from plaintiff's 

submissions that defendants are being deliberately indifferent to 

his serious medical needs. As such, his chances of succeeding on 

the merits of his medical claim appear to be low. 

Plaintiff fears that if the court does not provide him with a 

preliminary injunction, he might suffer permanent damage from his 

back pain and the tingling and numbness in his leg. Based on the 

portions of plaintiff's medical record that he has submitted, 

plaintiff's theory of permanent injury is speculative. Where 

plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the 

merits or that he is likely to suffer irreparable injury in the 

absence of a preliminary injunction, the court need not further 

explore the balance of equities and public interest factors. 

Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and his Motion to 

Intervene (#29) which reiterates his request for preliminary 

injunctive relief, are denied. 

Also before the court are plaintiff's Motion to Amend (#25) 

and Motions to File Supplemental Pleadings (#26 & #33). Local Rule 

4 - ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-01640-MO Document 41 Filed 04/16/15 Page 4 of 6
15-l(c) requires a party moving to amend a pleading to "reproduce 

the entire pleading and . . not incorporate any part of the prior 

pleading by reference" and to describe the changes to the pleading 

to be amended. In addition, a copy of the proposed amended 

pleading must be attached as an exhibit to any motion for leave to 

file the amended pleading. LR 15-1 (d) (1) . Because plaintiff's 

Motions do not comply with these requirements, they are denied. 

Plaintiff also asks the court to exclude the introduction of 

evidence that is irrelevant and unduly prejudicial that might 

concern his criminal history or unrelated medical information. The 

court grants the Motion in Limine (#32) insofar as it will not 

allow the introduction of evidence it finds to be irrelevant and 

unduly prejudicial. 

Finally, plaintiff has filed a ''Motion for Depositions Upon 

Written Questions" (#34) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31. He asks 

that the court require a non-party to provide him with answers to 

five questions within 30 days. There is no indication that 

plaintiff has sought to discover this information in the absence of 

a court order, and he has not described why leave of the court is 

required under Rule 31 (a) (2). 

denied. 

As such, plaintiff's Motion is 

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#23), Motion to 

Amend (#25), Motions to File Supplemental Pleadings (#26 & #33), 

5 - ORDER 

Case 2:14-cv-01640-MO Document 41 Filed 04/16/15 Page 5 of 6
Motion to Intervene (#29), and Motion for Depositions Upon Written 

Questions (#34) are denied. 

Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (#32) is granted insofar as the 

court will exclude evidence it finds to be irrelevant and unduly 

prejudicial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this Cb~ay 

6 - ORDER 

of April, 2015. 

Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-01640-MO Document 41 Filed 04/16/15 Page 6 of 6