Carpenter 259939 v. Ryan, 2:18-cv-01631

Background

Plaintiff Edward Lamar Carpenter, a state prison inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment medical and dental care claims against Corizon, NP Lawrence Ende, Nurse LaToya Bryce, and Dr. Larry Russell.
The Court previously screened and allowed medical/dental claims to proceed and denied an earlier amended motion for preliminary injunction, directing Corizon and Dr. Russell to report whether follow-up periodontal treatment ordered by Dr. Russell had been provided.
Defendants filed a notice and records showing Plaintiff received periodontal treatment (scaling and root planing on Feb. 22, 2019) and that Dr. DeLossantos discussed extractions; Plaintiff did not dispute receiving the prescribed treatment.
Plaintiff filed two motions construed as new motions for preliminary injunction seeking (1) hernia repair/mesh replacement, MRI for knee, job accommodations; and (2) wet wipes/tuck pads/probiotics for GI issues, sunscreen/long sleeves/hat and prescriptions for skin cancer, and dental relief (toothbrush, implants, 6‑month cleanings).
The record shows Defendants provided conservative medical care: pain medications, ADA restrictions, insoles, x‑rays (no indication for knee replacement or MRI), stool testing, hemorrhoid treatment, probiotics prescribed and delivered, dermatology consults and topical meds, and dental deep cleaning per Dr. Russell’s plan.
The Court found Plaintiff failed to meet the heavy burden for preliminary injunctive relief (no likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm) and denied both motions; it also found Defendants’ periodontal Notice satisfied the prior order.

Issues

Issue	Carpenter's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether Court should order hernia repair/mesh replacement	Requests surgical repair and mesh replacement due to pain and prior refusal by Corizon	Medical records show examinations, conservative treatment (Tylenol/Ibuprofen, activity restriction); no evidence surgery is medically necessary	Denied — no likelihood of success or irreparable harm; prior findings remain (no new facts)
Whether Court should order MRI/knee surgery or job accommodations	Requests MRI, knee treatment, and work assignment allowing rest and meds	Records show acetaminophen, insoles, ADA restrictions, x‑rays showing knee in good position; Plaintiff relieved from kitchen duties; job assignment relief is outside complaint	Denied — no medical necessity for MRI; job-order relief beyond complaint and court’s jurisdiction; no irreparable harm
Whether Court should order GI supplies, probiotics, tuck pads	Requests wet wipes, tuck pads, probiotics for frequent bloody stools after antibiotics	Medical staff performed exams, ordered stool tests, provided fiber/hemorrhoid cream, prescribed probiotics (started Apr 30); wet wipes/tuck pads not medically indicated or not available per policy	Denied — Plaintiff is receiving appropriate care; requested items not medically indicated; no irreparable harm
Whether Court should order dermatology supplies and dental remedies	Requests sunscreen, long sleeves, hat, dermatology prescriptions, toothbrush, implants, regular cleanings	Defendants arranged dermatology consults, provided topical meds, SNO for long sleeves, Plaintiff may buy sunscreen; dental deep cleaning was provided per plan; no current periodontal need for implants or alternate brush	Denied — ongoing monitoring/treatment exists; past disagreements insufficient for injunction; no present irreparable harm

Key Cases Cited

Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2012) (preliminary injunction standard and burden of persuasion)
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy)
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction)
Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir. 2013) (serious questions variant for preliminary injunction)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (balance-of-hardships test when serious questions exist)
Envtl. Council of Sacramento v. Slater, 184 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (E.D. Cal. 2000) (movant bears burden on each element)
Comm. of Cent. Am. Refugees v. INS, 795 F.2d 1434 (9th Cir. 1986) (heightened standard for mandatory injunctions)
Gilmore v. People of the State of Cal., 220 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2000) (PLRA requires narrow, least intrusive injunctive relief in prisoner suits)
Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2015) (injunction must relate to claims pled in the complaint)
De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212 (1945) (injunctive relief inappropriate for matters outside suit)
Conn. v. Massachusetts, 282 U.S. 660 (1931) (injunctions prevent existing or presently threatened injuries)
Caribbean Marine Services Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1988) (past harms insufficient for preliminary injunction)