(PC) Driver v. Kern County Superior Court ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 BILLY DRIVER, No. 2: 20-cv-1665 JAM KJN P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et 14 al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. (ECF 19 No. 118.) For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for 20 injunctive relief be denied. 21 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint against defendants Bansal, Dr. 22 Rauf and Maya. (ECF No. 13.) Defendant Bansal is employed at the California Medical Facility 23 (“CMF”). Defendants Rauf and Maya are employed at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). 24 Plaintiff alleges that these defendants violated the Eighth Amendment when they denied 25 plaintiff’s request to discontinue his prescription for the anti-psychotic medication Invega after 26 plaintiff told defendants that he was not psychotic and that the medication caused harmful side 27 effects, including chest pain, borderline diabetes, heart palpitations and gynecomastia. 28 In the pending motion, plaintiff alleges that he suffers serious side effects from the anti- 1 | psychotic medication Haldol. Plaintiff describes these side effects as chest pain and kidney pain. 2 | Plaintiff requests that the court order defendants to discontinue his prescription for Haldol. 3 A preliminary injunction is appropriate when it grants relief of the same nature as that to 4 | be finally granted. De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). “[T]here 5 || must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the 6 || conduct asserted in the underlying claim.” Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical 7 | Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). 8 As discussed above, this action proceeds on plaintiffs claim challenging his prescription 9 || for Invega. The pending motion seeks relief regarding a different medication, Haldol. For this 10 || reason, the undersigned finds that plaintiff's pending request to be taken off Haldol is not 11 | sufficiently related to the claims raised in the amended complaint. Accordingly, plaintiffs 12 || request to be taken off Haldol should be denied. Cf. Barber v. Sutmiller, 2017 WL 1208022, at 13 | *5 n. 6 (W.D. Okl. March 9, 2019) (finding that plaintiffs underlying claim for the “triple 14 || therapy” did not support current request for injunctive relief for a different treatment, the Harvoni 15 || 12 week cure). 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs motion for injunctive 17 || relief (ECF No. 118) be denied. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 19 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 20 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 21 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 22 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 23 || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 24 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 25 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 || Dated: February 18, 2022 Foci) Aharon Drl665.pi(3) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE