Martin v. Muniz ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | GEORGE MARTIN, Case No. 17-01690 BLF (PR) 0 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST 13 FOR LEAVE TO FILE v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LAST COURT ORDER; 6 DENYING REQUESTS FOR = W. MUNIZ, et al., EXTENSION OF TIME AS Defendants. MOOT 18 (Docket Nos. 153, 154, 164) 19 20 Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil *! | rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against prison || officials at Salinas Valley State Prison (““SVSP”). The operative 23 complaint is the second amended complaint, Dkt. No. 129, and ** || the only claim in this matter is the Eighth Amendment claim || concerning Plaintiff’s pain management, including the denial of °° || corrective surgery to address the chronic pain, against Defendants | Dr. Kim R. Kumar, Dr. Darrin M. Bright, Tuan Anh Tran, Dr. 28 1 || Edward Miles Birdsong, and Dr. Jennifer Villa. Dkt. No 137 at 2 || 7. 3 Defendants filed a summary judgment motion on March 20, 4 || 2020. Dkt. No. 149. Plaintiff filed opposition papers on May 11, 5 || 2020. Dkt. Nos. 155, 156, 157, 158. The matter became 6 || submitted on May 18, 2020, upon the filing of Defendants’ reply. 7 || Dkt. No. 159. 8 The Court herein addresses several pending motions filed by 9 || Plaintiff. Dkt. Nos. 153, 154, and 164. 10 DISCUSSION « 12 | A. Requests for Extension of Time E 13 On April 30, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension S 14 || of time of forty-two days from the filing date of the order to file 3 1s || an opposition, such that Plaintiff had until June 11, 2020, to file a 2 16 || timely opposition. Dkt. No. 151. Then on May 1 and 7, 2020, 17 || Plaintiff filed two requests for an extension of time to file an 18 || Opposition which were not docketed as pending motions and i9 || therefore did not come to the attention of the Court at that time. 20 || Dkt. Nos. 153. 154. It appears Plaintiff filed these requests 21 || before receiving the Court’s April 30, 2020 order granting his 22 || first request for an extension of time. Nevertheless, Plaintiff still 23 || managed to file his opposition and supporting documents on May 24 || 11, 2020. Dkt. Nos. 155, 156, 157, 158. Accordingly, the Court 25 || will deny his requests for an extension of time as moot. Dkt. 26 Nos. 153, 154. 27 || /// 1 || B. Request for Court Order 2 Plaintiff has filed a document containing numerous requests, 3 || including an order granting him access to the law library “to 4 || acquire legal photo copies and review points of law relating to 5 || recent court order deny[ing] prospective relief,” and “to obtain 6 || copies of documents affirming proof of complete exhaustion of 7 || remedies.” Dkt. No. 164 at 1. 8 Before Defendants filed their motion for summary 9 || judgment, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction and 19 || temporary restraining order. Dkt. No. 143. After reviewing the 11 || motion and Defendants’ opposition, Dkt. No. 146, the Court 12 || denied Plaintiff's motion. Dkt. No. 163. The Court assumes this E 13 || last court order is what Plaintiff refers to as the “recent court S 14 || order deny[ing] prospective relief.” 3 15 Plaintiff also argues that in denying his request for 2 16 || prospective relief, the Court “inadvertently testified on the record 17 || on behalf of the Officer of the Attorney General as it directly 18 || relate[s]| to critical facts regarding exhaustion of state remedy 19 || require[d] by the (PLRA).” Jd. 1-2. Plaintiff asserts that the 20 || Court did not consider his “many submitted exhibits inter alia 21 || experts opinions that were provided by proxy of the public tax 22 || payer funds [sic].” Jd. at 2. Plaintiff asserts that the Court’s 23 || conclusion that he had failed to show a likelihood of success on 24 || the merits is in “conflict with affirmed factual documents that 25 || Support every claim and or cause of action before a jury.” □□□ 26 || Plaintiff asserts that he “did exhaust completely all remedies” and 27 || that he can show it if he can obtain copies through a court order. 1 || Id. The Court will construe this request as a motion for 2 || reconsideration of the last court order which requires leave of 3 || court under the Northern District’s Local Rule 7-9. 4 1. Legal Standard 5 A motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may 6 || be filed prior to the entry of a final judgment in the case. Civ. 7 || L.R. 7-9(a). “The moving party must specifically show g || reasonable diligence in bringing the motion” and one of the 9 || following circumstances: 10 (1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was 2 presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory E 13 order for which reconsideration is sought. The party S 14 also must show that in the exercise of reasonable 3 15 diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not 2 6 know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory Boy order; or 5 18 (2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of 19 law occurring after the time of such order; or 20 (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material 21 facts or dispositive legal arguments which were 22 presented to the Court before such interlocutory order. 23 || Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). 24 2. Analysis 25 First with regards to diligence, the court order denying 26 || Plaintiff's motion for an injunction was filed on July 24, 2020, 27 || Dkt. No. 163, and Plaintiff filed the instant request on August 10, 1 || 2020, Dkt. No. 164. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has 2 || Shown reasonable diligence in bringing the motion. Second, 3 || based on Plaintiff's assertions above, the Court construes his 4 || motion as being made under subsection (3) above, 1.e., failure to 5 || consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. See supra 6 || at 3. 7 The specific part of the court order to which Plaintiff objects g || 1s the discussion on Defendants’ first objection to Plaintiffs 9 || request for an injunction: 10 Defendants first object to Plaintiff's request for an injunction regarding crush and float 2 medications because he cannot demonstrate a E 13 likelihood of success on the merits. Dkt. No. 146 S 14 at 3. Defendants point out that in a previous 3 15 order in this matter, the Court found Plaintiff had 2 ig failed to establish a likelihood of success on 17 nearly an identically presented issue because it 18 was unlikely that he had managed to successfully 19 exhaust administrative remedies and therefore 20 would not be able to proceed on the merits. Id.; 21 Dkt. No. 74. Those circumstances have not 22 changed. Furthermore, Plaintiff also fails to 23 establish that he is likely to suffer irreparable 24 harm in the absence of preliminary relief where, 25 as Defendants point out, he has provided no 6 persuasive evidence that the “crush and float” 27 manner of ingesting his pain medication is in any 1 way harmful. Accordingly, the Court finds that 2 Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of 3 persuasion by a clear showing that a preliminary 4 injunction with respect to crush and float 5 medication is warranted. See Lopez, 680 F.3d at 6 1072. 7 || Dkt. No. 163 at 3-4. 8 Plaintiff adamantly asserts that he exhausted administrative 9 || remedies. See supra at 3. However, even if the Court erred in io || assuming that he had not, that still would not render the denial of 11 || an injunction improper because likelihood of success on the 12 || merits is only one factor. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary E 13 || injunction must establish that he 1s likely to succeed on the S 14 || merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence 3 is || of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, B 16 || and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural 17 || Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Where 1g || the court concludes the movant has failed to show a likelihood of 19 || Success on the merits, the court, in its discretion, need not 20 || consider whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury. 21 || Guzman v. Shewry, 552 F.3d 941, 948 (9th Cir. 2009). 22 Here, the Court proceeded to also consider whether Plaintiff 23 || had shown that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm in the 24 || absence of preliminary relief. See supra at 5. In that regard, 2s || Plaintiff asserts the Court did not consider his “many submitted 26 || exhibits inter alia experts [sic] opinions.” See supra at 3. 27 || However, the attached exhibits “A1-20” do not contain any 1 || expert opinion with respect to the likelihood that Plaintiff will 2 || suffer irreparable harm if he continues to take medication in 3 || crush-float form. Dkt. No. 143 at 31-51. Rather, the exhibits 4 || contain a copy of counsel’s declaration in support of Defendants’ 5 || Opposition to Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, 6 || committee review summaries, correspondence with the California 7 || Correctional Health Care Services, chronos, and Plaintiff's g || medical records. Jd. at 31-50. None of the documents make 9 || mention of the issue of crush-float medication. Jd. The last page 10 || of the exhibits appears to be a cutout of a newspaper article dated 11 || January 13, 2016, regarding the proper exhaustion of 2 administrative remedies, which 1s irrelevant on the issue of E 13 || irreparable harm due to crush-float medication. Plaintiff has S 14 || failed to show a manifest failure by the Court to consider material 3 is || facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the 2 16 || Court in denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. 5 17 || Accordingly, his motion for leave to file a motion for 5 ig || reconsideration is DENIED. 19 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's request for leave to file 22 || motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9 is DENIED. 23 || Dkt. No. 164. Accordingly, Plaintiffs related request for a court 24 || order for library access it prepare such a motion is DENIED as 25 || moot. 6 Plaintiff's requests for an extension of time to file 27 || opposition are DENIED as moot. Dkt. Nos. 153, 154. 1 This order terminates Docket Nos. 153, 154, and 164. 2 IT ISSO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: _ August 21, 2020 fos Lely cencae! 4 ETH LABSON FREEMAN ; United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 g 13 14 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Order Denying Leave to File Recon. & EOTs 25 PRO-SE\BLF\CR.17\01690Martin_deny.recon&eot 26 27