- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILLY DRIVER, No. 2: 20-cv-1665 JAM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et 15 al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 19 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. (ECF 20 No. 147.) For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for 21 injunctive relief be denied. 22 This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint against defendants Bansal, Dr. 23 Rauf and Maya. (ECF No. 13.) Defendant Bansal is employed at the California Medical Facility 24 (“CMF”). Defendants Rauf and Maya are employed at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”). 25 Plaintiff alleges that these defendants violated the Eighth Amendment when they denied 26 plaintiff’s request to discontinue his prescription for the anti-psychotic medication Invega after 27 plaintiff told defendants that he was not psychotic and that the medication caused harmful side 28 effects, including chest pain, borderline diabetes, heart palpitations and gynecomastia. 1 In the pending motion, plaintiff alleges that defendants “continue to injure plaintiff via 2 unlawful antipsychotic drugs.” (ECF No. 147 at 1.) Plaintiff requests that defendants be ordered 3 to reduce his Haldol prescription to PRN as needed. (Id.) 4 A preliminary injunction is appropriate when it grants relief of the same nature as that to 5 be finally granted. De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945). “[T]here 6 must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the 7 conduct asserted in the underlying claim.” Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Medical 8 Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015). 9 As discussed above, this action proceeds on plaintiff’s claim challenging his prescription 10 for Invega.1 The pending motion seeks relief regarding a different medication, Haldol. For this 11 reason, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s pending request to reduce his Haldol prescription is 12 not sufficiently related to the claims raised in the amended complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 13 request to reduce his Haldol prescription should be denied. Cf. Barber v. Sutmiller, 2017 WL 14 1208022, at *5 n. 6 (W.D. Okl. March 9, 2019) (finding that plaintiff’s underlying claim for the 15 “triple therapy” did not support current request for injunctive relief for a different treatment, the 16 Harvoni 12 week cure). 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for injunctive 18 relief (ECF No. 147) be denied. 19 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 20 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 21 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 22 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 23 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 24 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 25 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 26 27 1 Defendants previously informed the court that plaintiff received his final dose of Invega on June 15, 2021. (ECF No. 100-1 at 2.) In the pending motion, plaintiff does not allege that he was 28 recently prescribed Invega. 1 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 2 || Dated: May 13, 2022 ; Foci) Aharon 4 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 4 Dr1665.pi(4) 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 2:20-cv-01665
Filed Date: 5/13/2022
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/20/2024