Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Larry William Cortinas, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California. His August 3, 2026 complaint named the Stanislaus County Public Safety Center and eight individual defendants, including sheriff’s personnel, facility staff, nurses, and a physician. He alleged denial of medical care, denial of access to grievance processes, an Americans with Disabilities Act claim, and a First Amendment claim. The filing before the court was not a decision on those underlying claims, but Cortinas’s request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order at ECF No. 2.
The court construed Cortinas’s filing as a motion for injunctive relief. He asked the court to stop defendants from denying medical treatment and an appointment with a named neurosurgeon, to compel care prescribed by that neurosurgeon, to require left testicle hydrocele surgery prescribed by San Joaquin Hospital, and to provide other medical treatment. He also sought an electronic tablet functioning like those available to other incarcerated people at the facility. The requested medical and tablet orders would require affirmative action rather than merely preserve existing conditions.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that preliminary relief requires a likelihood of irreparable injury and application of the four Winter factors: likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a favorable balance of equities, and consistency with the public interest. It also described the Ninth Circuit’s sliding-scale alternative, under which serious questions on the merits may suffice when hardships tip sharply toward the plaintiff and the other factors are met. Because Cortinas sought affirmative commands, the court applied the especially demanding standard for mandatory injunctions, requiring the law and facts clearly to favor the requested relief.
On medical treatment, the court distinguished a prisoner’s disagreement with providers over the appropriate course of care from a viable Eighth Amendment claim. A claim involving alternative treatments may succeed when the selected treatment was medically unacceptable and chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to health. The court found that Cortinas alleged denial of the treatment he preferred but did not clearly show that his surgery requests were denied in favor of medically unacceptable treatment or treatment chosen with that conscious disregard. It therefore concluded that he had not shown a high likelihood of success insofar as his original claim rested on denial of the requested surgeries.
The tablet request failed on a different element. Although Cortinas wanted the same kind of tablet available to other inmates, the court found no showing that he would suffer irreparable harm without one and concluded that an injunction compelling tablet access was not warranted at this stage. The resulting recommendation was that the motion for injunctive relief be denied. Separately, the court ordered that the November 3, 2026 order be vacated as issued in error and directed the clerk to randomly assign a district judge. The recommendation remains subject to the assigned district judge’s review, with objections due within 14 days after service and responses due within 14 days after service of objections.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended denial of Cortinas’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order; the recommendation was not itself the final denial.
- The requested medical orders were treated as mandatory injunctions, so Cortinas had to show that the law and facts clearly favored affirmative relief.
- A preference for particular surgeries was insufficient without a clear showing that the chosen alternative was medically unacceptable and selected in conscious disregard of an excessive health risk.
- The court separately found no demonstrated irreparable harm from the absence of an electronic tablet, even though other incarcerated people had tablets.
- The order vacated the November 3, 2026 order as erroneous and directed random assignment of a district judge, while preserving a 14-day period for objections to the findings and recommendations.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinct showings required for emergency relief in prisoner litigation: the medical request faltered on likelihood of success, while the tablet request faltered on irreparable harm. It did not adjudicate the merits of Cortinas’s medical-care, grievance-access, ADA, or First Amendment claims, and it left the ultimate ruling on injunctive relief to the district judge after the objection process.