Steve Murray v. Kenneth Williams, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00123
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 STEVE MURRAY, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00123-MMD-CSD

4 Plaintiff Report & Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 5 v. Re: ECF No. 40 6 KENNETH WILLIAMS, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 This Report and Recommendation is made to the Honorable Miranda M. Du, United 9 States District Judge. The action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 10 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the Local Rules of Practice, LR 1B 1-4. 11 Plaintiff filed a document titled “judicial notice” However, the filing actually seeks 12 injunctive relief, and the court will construe it as such. (ECF No. 40.) Defendants filed a 13 response. (ECF No. 43.) 14 After a thorough review, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 40) be 15 denied. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC), 18 proceeding pro se with this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 6.) The court 19 screened Plaintiff’s complaint and allowed him to proceed with Eighth Amendment deliberate 20 indifference to serious medical needs claims against Dr. Benson, Dr. Voss, Dr. Bijjula, Dr. 21 Williams, Director of Nursing (DON) Lucas, DON Isaacson, Brendal, John Doe 1 (when 22 Plaintiff learns his or her identity), Medekith, Kris, and John Doe 2 (when Plaintiff learns his or 23 her identity). 1 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he suffers from two types of blood cancer that require 2 regular testing of his platelet count. He avers that Defendants did not implement procedures to 3 ensure his platelet count would not spike, and when it did, they did not provide treatment to 4 reduce his platelet count or ignored his requests for treatment. He also alleges that he was

5 prescribed Boost to help maintain his weight, but Dr. Williams instituted a policy prohibiting 6 prescription protein drinks above a certain BMI level. 7 In his “judicial notice” filing, Plaintiff asserts that when he saw his oncologist on May 8 20, 2025, the doctor added Hydroxyurea three times a week to help lower Plaintiff’s blood 9 levels, but NDOC is not following his oncologist’s orders. Plaintiff also mentions that the 10 oncologist ordered Plaintiff to be on Boost on a regular basis (twice a day), and nothing has been 11 done. Plaintiff asks the court to order NDOC medical to follow his oncologist’s orders. (ECF No. 12 40.) 13 II. LEGAL STANDARD 14 The purpose of a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is to preserve the

15 status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the moving party that justice requires the 16 court to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the action are ultimately determined. 17 University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). 18 Injunctions and temporary restraining orders are governed procedurally by Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure 65, but case law outlines the substantive requirements a party must satisfy to obtain 20 an injunction or restraining order. See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, 21 Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 319 (1999) ("[T]he general availability of injunctive relief [is] not altered by 22 [Rule 65] and depend[s] on traditional principles of equity jurisdiction."). 23 1 A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that is “never awarded 2 as of right.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (citations omitted). Instead, in every 3 case, the court “must balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each 4 party of the granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense

5 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 23 (2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The instant 6 motion requires that the court determine whether Plaintiff has established the following: (1) he is 7 likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 8 preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public 9 interest. Id. at 20 (citations omitted).). The Ninth Circuit has held that “serious questions going to 10 the merits and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff can support the issuance of 11 an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test are also met.” Alliance for the 12 Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and quotation marks 13 omitted). 14 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) mandates that prisoner litigants must satisfy

15 additional requirements when seeking preliminary injunctive relief against prison officials. The 16 PLRA provides that such relief must be “narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to 17 correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means 18 necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, that he is likely to 21 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief, that the balance of equities tips in his 22 favor or that an injunction is in the public interest. 23 1 To support his request, Plaintiff includes two medical kites where Plaintiff contends that 2 NDOC medical providers are not following his oncologist’s orders, but he does not provide the 3 court with medical records establishing what the oncologist has ordered, or NDOC medical 4 records reflecting what treatment has been provided.

5 Defendants provide a declaration of Nurse Christy Coss that addresses the issues raised in 6 Plaintiff’s filing. According to Nurse Coss, Plaintiff was prescribed Jakafi, an oral chemotherapy 7 medication, to treat his blood cancers. (Coss Decl., ECF No. 43-1 ¶ 6.) In June 2025, his Jakafi 8 dosage was increased. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff saw his oncologist, Dr. Bijjula, on August 7, 2025, and 9 Dr. Bijjula ordered that Plaintiff add Hydroxyurea three times a week until his platelet count 10 drops to 450 or lower. (Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff had previously been switched from Hydroxyurea to 11 Jakafi due to adverse side effects from Hydroxyurea, and Dr. Bijjula previously said that Plaintiff 12 could not take both medications. (Id. ¶ 9.) Medical staff at Northern Nevada Correctional Center 13 (NNCC) contacted Dr. Bijjula’s office for clarification of the orders, but did not receive a 14 response. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 11.) Plaintiff saw Dr. Bijjula for a follow up on September 26, 2025, and

15 Dr. Bijjula reissued the order for Hydroxyurea three times a week, and NNCC medical staff 16 filled the prescription. (Id. ¶ 12.) Hydroxyurea will be administered three times a week until 17 Plaintiff’s platelet count hits the target of 450 or lower. (Id. ¶ 13.) 18 In sum, Plaintiff appears to be receiving the chemotherapy medication as ordered by his 19 oncologist, so his request for injunctive relief is moot in that regard. 20 With respect to the Boost shakes, Nurse Coss states that Plaintiff receives a double 21 portion, high protein diet as an alternative, as Boost shakes merely provide nutrients and 22 additional protein, and there is no clinical difference between the high protein diet and the Boost 23 shakes. (Id. ¶¶ 15-18.) 1 At this point, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the difference of opinion between the 2 oncologist and NNCC medical providers to provide a double portion, high protein diet instead of 3 Boost shakes is “medically unacceptable under the circumstances.” See Snow v. McDaniel, 681 4 F.3d 967, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted, overruled on other grounds by Peralta v.

5 Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014)). For example, Plaintiff does not assert that placing him on 6 the alternative option of a double portion, high protein diet is not meeting his nutritional needs, 7 or is not allowing him to maintain his weight. Nor does he provide an order or opinion from his 8 oncologist that the alternative being provided is insufficient to meet Plaintiff’s medical needs. 9 Plaintiff merely states that he is not being given Boost. 10 Under these circumstances, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief should be denied. 11 IV. RECOMMENDATION 12 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Judge enter an order DENYING 13 Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief (ECF No. 40). 14 The parties should be aware of the following:

15 1. That they may file, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), specific written objections to 16 this Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the Report 17 and Recommendation. These objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 18 Report and Recommendation” and should be accompanied by points and authorities for 19 consideration by the district judge. Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to 20 appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// ] 2. That this Report and Recommendation is not an appealable order and that any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed 3] until entry of judgment by the district court. 4 Dated: October 22, 2025 CS Or Craig S. Denney 7 United States Magisffate Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23