(PC) Cortinas v. Soltanian ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, Case No. 2:20-cv-01067-JAM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A SCHEDULING ORDER 13 v. ECF No. 62 14 JALLA SOLTANIAN, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BE DENIED 16 ECF No. 48 17 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 18 DAYS 19 20 Plaintiff has filed a motion for injunctive relief that asks that third-party Dr. Heather 21 McCune be assigned as his primarily health care provider.1 ECF No. 48. 22 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on 23 the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the 24 balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Glossip v. 25 Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 876 (2015) (quoting Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 26 27 1 Plaintiff has also filed a motion asking that the court issue a scheduling order. ECF No. 62. That motion is moot in light of the March 1, 2022, discovery and scheduling order. See ECF 28 No. 65. 1 (2008)). “[P]laintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to 2 obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 3 (9th Cir. 2011). In addition to establishing irreparable harm, plaintiff must show that the 4 injunctive relief sought is related to the claims in the complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, 5 LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015) (“When a plaintiff seeks injunctive 6 relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an 7 injunction.”). A permanent injunction may be granted only after a final hearing on the merits. 8 See MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Comput., Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 520 (9th Cir. 1993) (“As a general rule, 9 a permanent injunction will be granted when liability has been established . . . .”). 10 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) imposes additional requirements on prisoner 11 litigants who seek preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. In such cases, 12 “[p]reliminary injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to 13 correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means 14 necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). As the Ninth Circuit has previously 15 observed, the PLRA places significant limits upon a court’s power to grant preliminary injunctive 16 relief to inmates, and “operates simultaneously to restrict the equity jurisdiction of federal courts 17 and to protect the bargaining power of prison administrators—no longer may courts grant or 18 approve relief that binds prison administrators to do more than the constitutional minimum.” 19 Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). 20 The instant motion is one of several motions for injunctive relief that plaintiff has filed. 21 See ECF Nos. 6, 37, 45, 47, & 49. As with his other motions, the instant one does not address the 22 Winter factors. Consequently, plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that injunctive 23 relief is warranted. See Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010) (“‘An 24 injunction is a matter of equitable discretion’ and is ‘an extraordinary remedy that may only be 25 awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.’”) (quoting Winter, 555 26 U.S. at 376, 381). Significantly, there is no basis for concluding that plaintiff will be irreparably 27 harmed by receiving treatment from a physician other than Dr. McCune. See Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 28 1131 (“Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in 1 | order to obtain a preliminary injunction.”) (emphasis original). Furthermore, the public interest 2 | would not be served by this court—which lacks medical expertise—meddling in decisions best 3 | left to health care practitioners. Cf. White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 113 (3d Cir. 1990) (“The 4 | medical care of prison inmates is entrusted to prison doctors, to whose judgment and training 5 | courts owe substantial deference. Courts are ill-equipped to specify the medical [treatment] that 6 | must be provided to prison patients.”). 7 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a scheduling order, ECF 8 || No. 62, is denied as moot. 9 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, ECF No. 48, 10 || be denied. 11 I submit these findings and recommendations to the district judge under 12 | 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States 13 | District Court, Eastern District of California. The parties may, within 14 days of the service of 14 | these findings and recommendations, file written objections with the court. Such objections 15 | should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 16 | district judge will review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 8 636(b)(1)(C). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( 1 Sty — Dated: _ March 1, 2022 q_-—_— 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28