Hamilton v. Davis

Background

Paul C. Hamilton, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously ordered him to explain why the action should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), based on his history of more than three prior actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. His response to that order was due January 24, 2020.

Hamilton requested an emergency temporary injunction requiring prison officials to house him in a single cell while the case was litigated. He alleged that hydrochlorothiazide, which he took for hypertension, caused frequent nighttime urination and that his urine had an odor. He said that flushing the toilet and getting up repeatedly had caused cellmates to complain or leave their cells. He expressed concern that a cellmate might become violent, but he acknowledged that no physical violence had occurred or been threatened.

Hamilton had requested a single cell as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Armstrong Remedial Plan. The prison’s Reasonable Accommodation Panel rejected that request, stating that it did not meet the applicable criteria and that a medical evaluation had found that his medical conditions or prescribed medications did not exclude him from double-cell housing. Hamilton also admitted that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies before filing the action.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the request as one for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Such relief is extraordinary and requires a clear showing of entitlement. The court applied the factors requiring a showing of likely success on the merits, likely and immediate irreparable harm, a favorable balance of hardships, and consistency with the public interest. It also discussed the Ninth Circuit’s approach allowing the factors to be balanced, but explained that the possibility of harm alone is insufficient.

The court held that Hamilton’s evidence did not show likely and imminent irreparable harm. His verified request provided no specific facts showing an actual threat to his physical safety. The situation had existed for about a year, and the reported responses were verbal complaints and cellmates moving away. The absence of past violence weighed against finding that violence was likely or imminent.

The court also found that Hamilton had not shown a likelihood of success. His admitted failure to exhaust administrative remedies was significant because the exhaustion requirement for prisoners is mandatory. The court stated that it could not ignore that failure to reach the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim.

Separately, the court found Hamilton’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect allegations weak as currently pleaded. Such a claim requires a substantial risk of serious harm and deliberate indifference by the prison official. Hamilton described words being spoken and cellmates moving away, but he did not identify physical acts or threats. The court explained that a prisoner need not wait to be attacked, but must still show a substantial risk of serious harm.

Finally, because the defendants had not yet been served, Hamilton sought emergency relief without notice. The court found that he had not provided the specific facts and information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1), including information about efforts to notify the defendants and reasons notice should not be given. The court called this failure fatal to his ex parte request.

Disposition

The court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte request for a temporary restraining order or injunction, identified as Docket No. 11. The order addressed interim relief; it did not enter a final judgment on the underlying civil-rights action.