(PC) Washington v. Castillo ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON, Case No.: 1:23-cv-01095-JLT-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR OTHER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 A. CASTILLO, et al., (Doc. 16) 15 Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD 16 17 Plaintiff Tracye Benard Washington is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Request for 21 Temporary Restraining Order-Injunctive Relief Pending Litigation of This Civil Action FRCP 22 Rule 65(a).” (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff states he was housed in Short Term Restricted Housing 23 (“STRH”) at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) in Corcoran, California, for an 24 eight-month period. (Id. 1-2.) Of the one hundred available cells in the STRH unit, only two were 25 designed to accommodate prisoners who require the use of a wheelchair full time. (Id. at 2.) 26 Because Plaintiff suffers from a number of maladies, including asthma, sickle cell disease and a 27 bone disease causing paralysis, he uses a wheelchair. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff contends the ventilation 1 and out of the cell.” (Id. at 2.) 2 Plaintiff tested the strength of air flow “by placing a four-by-four square piece of tissue in 3 front of the vents to determine how strong the air into the cell was blowing by whether the tissue 4 would ride the wind-flow like a flowing cape, and how strong the vent was removing the air by 5 whether the tissue would stick to the vent by suction.” (Id.) He asserts that temperatures in those 6 cells “can soar” in the summer months and inadequate ventilation means the cells do not cool. (Id. 7 at 3.) Plaintiff contends a lack of or poor oxygen “can lead to a stroke and death in Plaintiff’s case 8 as well as those similar situated.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that when those conditions are combined 9 with a COVID-19 infection, “death is just around the corner.” (Id.) Plaintiff states he experienced 10 that “during his eight month involuntary housing in STRH until the effects led to his desperate 11 actions…in seeking medical aid.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends discovery will show “the maintenance 12 of the STRH ventilation malfunctioning over a [lengthy] period will prove that this building is not 13 safe for housing Plaintiff or any other prisoner who suffers from similar health conditions and is 14 elderly or in poor health.” (Id.) Plaintiff states he is no longer housed in the STRH unit at SATF, 15 but is nevertheless seeking (1) a hearing where the Court appoints its own experts and allows the 16 parties to provide evidence, and (2) a court order “that CDCR/SATF and all similarly affected 17 prisoners be barred from being housed in a STRH housing unit that does not have: (a) Adequate 18 ventilation …; (b) Filtered air to prevent Valley Fever dust, [particles], recirculated air from 19 within the units; (c) Sufficient outlets in the cells for C-Pap machines and oxygen tanks exclusive 20 of the outlets for prisoner personal appliances; (d) Prohibit the restriction-as a disciplinary 21 punishment-of prisoners in STRH in cell use of the Global-Tell-Link Tablet Phone App in order 22 that they have the ability to seek emergency aid should custody staff as in Plaintiff’s case refuse 23 to summon aid, or, Order that ‘Medical Emergency’ tab be added to the CDCR Prisoners Global 24 Tel Link Tablets…” (Id. at 4.) 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 A. Legal Standards 3 “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.” 1 Winter 4 v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (citation omitted). “A plaintiff seeking a 5 preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to 6 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 7 favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 20. 8 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 9 preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary matter, it 10 have before it an actual case or controversy. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983); 11 Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 12 464, 471 (1982). If the Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no 13 power to hear the matter in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 14 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find 15 the “relief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation 16 of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 17 Federal right.” See also Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 333 (2000) (the PLRA “establishes 18 standards for the entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions challenging conditions 19 at prison facilities”). 20 The pendency of this action does not give the Court jurisdiction over prison officials in 21 general. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 491-93 (2009); Mayfield v. United States, 22 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parties in this action 23 and to the viable legal claims upon which this action is proceeding. Summers, 555 U.S. at 491-93; 24 Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. 25 // 26 27 1 “The standard for a [temporary restraining order] is the same as for a preliminary injunction.” Rovio Entm’t Ltd. v. Royal Plush Toys, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). 1 A “federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the 2 parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of 3 persons not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). “[A]n 4 injunction must be narrowly tailored ‘to affect only those persons over which it has power,’ . . . 5 and to remedy only the specific harms shown by the plaintiffs, rather than ‘to enjoin all possible 6 breaches of the law.’” Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting 7 Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 727, 728 n.1). 8 dismissed. 9 B. Analysis 10 For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief 11 should be denied. 12 The Likelihood of Success on the Merits 13 In deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue, the likelihood of success on the 14 merits is the most important factor for the court to consider. Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, 15 Inc., 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir. 2017). This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 16 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Castillo-Barajas, a 17 correctional officer at SATF. Although Plaintiff’s complaint has been screened and service of 18 process is ongoing, the likelihood of success on the merits cannot be determined. The plausibility 19 or cognizability of Plaintiff’s claim does not mean his claim is likely to succeed on the merits. 20 Moreover, whether Defendant Castillo-Barajas was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious 21 medical needs does not necessarily involve the adequacy of the ventilation in Plaintiff’s cell at the 22 time of the incident giving rise to this litigation. 23 In sum, Plaintiff has not demonstrated he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. 24 Irreparable Harm 25 “The equitable remedy is unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury, a 26 requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the 27 plaintiff will be wronged again—a likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury.” 1 omitted). “Under Winter, plaintiffs must establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, 2 in order to obtain a preliminary injunction.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 3 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, Plaintiff is no longer housed in a STRH unit cell or even at 4 SATF. Rather, he is presently housed at another institution: Kern Valley State Prison. At best, 5 Plaintiff has not demonstrated irreparable harm. He has only demonstrated a possibility of 6 irreparable harm and there is no real or immediate threat Plaintiff will be wronged again. Winter, 7 555 U.S. at 20; Lyons, 461 U.S. at 111; Alliance, 632 F.3d at 1131. 8 A Balance of Equities and the Public Interest 9 Plaintiff has not established that the balance of equities tips in his favor or that the 10 injunction he seeks is in the public’s interest. Even assuming Plaintiff met these two Winter 11 factors, he has not met all four required factors given the Court’s findings regarding the 12 likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. Winter; 555 U.S. at 20. 13 Additional Considerations 14 As noted above, a federal court may issue an injunction where it has personal jurisdiction 15 over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Zepeda, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th 16 Cir. 1983). Here, Plaintiff seeks an injunction directed to “CDCR/SATF,” and potentially other 17 institutions. The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the California Department of 18 Corrections and Rehabilitation or its institutions. Moreover, an injunction must be narrowly 19 tailored and should remedy only specific harms shown by Plaintiff rather than “enjoin all possible 20 breaches of the law.’’ Price, 390 F.3d at 1117. Plaintiff’s request is not narrowly tailored and 21 seeks to enjoin purported breaches of the law beyond those at issue in this case. 22 In sum, Plaintiff is not entitled to the injunctive relief he seeks. 23 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24 For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion or 25 request for a temporary restraining order or other injunctive relief (Doc. 16) be DENIED. 26 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to 27 this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these 1 document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 2 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of 3 rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 4 Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: February 12, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27