Opinion
Case No. CV 14-9848-MMM (KK)
05-15-2015
SY LEE CASTLE, Plaintiff, v. S. SOTO, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION REQUESTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This is a pro se action filed by Plaintiff Sy Lee Castle ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison, Los Angeles County ("CSP-LAC") in Lancaster, California. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Preliminary Injunction ("Motion"). The defendants in this action have not yet been served with a copy of the Motion and therefore have not had an opportunity to respond. However, because the Court finds the Motion meritless, the Court deems a response unnecessary. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
On December 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and the instant Motion in this Court. ECF Docket No. ("dkt.") 1. The Complaint sues five CSP-LAC prison officials in their official capacities: (1) J. Soto; (2) S. Moore; (3) A. Martinez; (4) K. Thomas; and (5) N. Marquez. Compl. at 6-7. Defendant Soto is the Warden of CSP-LAC and defendants Moore, Martinez, Thomas, and Marquez are Correctional Officers at CSP-LAC. Id.
The name of this action on CM-ECF mistakenly refers to defendant Soto as "S. Soto."
The Court's citations to the Complaint and the Motion refer to the documents as if they were consecutively paginated.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff claims he suffers from a number of disabilities and is often confined to a wheelchair. Id. at 17. Plaintiff also alleges the defendants have failed to install: (1) wheelchair-accessible dip bars, pull-up bars, and tables in the CSP-LAC exercise yard; and (2) wheelchair-accessible drinking-water faucets in the CSP-LAC dayroom. Id. at 10, 18-33. Plaintiff claims the defendants' failure to install such facilities constitutes a violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Id.
The Complaint also briefly alleges that the failure to install such facilities constitutes a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See Compl. at 33.
--------
On December 26, 2014, Plaintiff concurrently filed the instant Motion. Dkt. 2. In the Motion, Plaintiff requests a preliminary injunction ordering the defendants to transfer Plaintiff to one of two correctional institutions for medically high-risk prisoners: California Medical Facility or Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. See Mot. at 2, 7. In support, Plaintiff claims he suffers from a number of medical conditions requiring treatment at these specific institutions, including severe spinal cord injury, degenerative disk disease, muscle spasms, and skin breakdown. Id. at 4, 23. Plaintiff appears to claim the defendants' failure to place Plaintiff in either of these facilities constitutes a violation of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Id. at 7. Plaintiff alleges that if he is not placed in either of these facilities, his medical conditions will continue to worsen. Id.
II.
DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the Court may grant a preliminary injunction in order to prevent "immediate and irreparable injury." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). The party seeking such relief must establish that: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities weighs in its favor; and (4) the injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). Alternatively, if the plaintiff "shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest," he may demonstrate his right to a preliminary injunction by establishing "serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply [in his favor]." Farris v. Seabrook, 677 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). Because a "preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy," Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 676, 128 S. Ct. 2207, 171 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted), the party seeking the injunction must present evidence sufficient to clearly carry his burden of persuasion on each requirement. Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650, 657 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted); see also Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (explaining that a preliminary injunction can issue only on "a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief").
"[T]o prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct giving rise to the complaint." Lebron v. Armstrong, 289 F. Supp. 2d 56, 61 (D. Conn. 2003); see also Kaimowitz v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997) ("A district court should not issue an injunction when the injunction in question is not of the same character, and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit."); Omega World Travel. Inc. v. Trans World Airlines, 111 F.3d 14, 16 (4th Cir. 1997) (reversing district court's grant of motion for preliminary injunctive relief because injury sought to be prevented through preliminary injunction was unrelated and contrary to injury which gave rise to complaint); Harris Const. Co. v. Tulare Local Healthcare Dist., No. CV F 13-1675 LJO-SAB, 2013 WL 6576034, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2013) (following Kaimowitz and Omega World Travel).
Here, Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief must be denied because the injury alleged in the instant Motion is unrelated to the conduct giving rise to the Complaint. The Complaint is predicated on the defendants' failure to install wheelchair-accessible dip bars, pull-up bars, tables, and drinking-water faucets at CSP-LAC. See Compl. at 18-33. Plaintiff's Motion is based on allegations Plaintiff suffers from medical conditions requiring treatment at California Medical Facility or Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. See Mot. at 2, 4, 7, 23. Plaintiff has not shown the injury alleged in the Motion is in any way related to the defendants' failure to install the wheelchair-accessible facilities noted in the Complaint. Hence, Plaintiff's Motion must be denied. See Kaimowitz, 122 F.3d at 43; Omega World Travel, 111 F.3d at 16; Lebron, 289 F. Supp. 2d at 61.
III.
ORDER
It therefore is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. DATED: May 15, 2015
/s/_________
HONORABLE MARGARET M. MORROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Presented by: /s/_________
Kenly Kiya Kato
United States Magistrate Judge