Salazar v. San Juan Cnty. Det. Ctr.
| Decision Date | 15 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 15-0417 JB/LF,No. CIV 15-0497 JB/LF,No. CIV 15-0526 JB/LF,No. CIV 15-0439 JB/LF,CIV 15-0417 JB/LF,CIV 15-0439 JB/LF,CIV 15-0497 JB/LF,CIV 15-0526 JB/LF |
| Parties | OLGA SALAZAR, Personal Representative of the Estate of JESUS MARQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. SAN JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ("SJCDC"), SAN JUAN COUNTY, SAN JUAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ("SJRMC"), THOMAS C. HAVEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF SJCDC, DR. ERIC KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, CINDY KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, KATIE (Unknown Surname), RN, Defendants. Consolidated with JESSE BERKEY, EARL CALLAHAN, LARIET CHARLES, GORDON DOUGLAS DERRICK, AARON EATON, CALVIN FINCH, PAUL GOULD, JOSEPH GUTIERREZ, MARK HINOJOS, THOMAS KNIGHT, AURELIO MARQUEZ, ANGELO MARTINEZ, MARK MARTINEZ, RUDY MARTINEZ, VICTORIA MARTINEZ, PAUL MATAMOROS, RICHARD MCDONALD, DEBBIE NEZ, DAVID PAGE, STEVE PARRISH, CLIFFORD ROGERS, ADAM SCHUESSLER, JASON TRUJILLO, FRANKLIN TSO, STEVE VALERIO, JIMMY WEAHKEE and HARRY WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. SAN JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ("SJCDC") SAN JUAN COUNTY, CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, INC. ("CHC"), SAN JUAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ("SJRMC"), PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL SERVICES ("PRESBYTERIAN"), THOMAS C. HAVEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR, SAN JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendants. Consolidated with CHARLES CARTER, Personal Representative of the Estate of WILLIAM "BILLY" CARTER, Plaintiff, v. SAN JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ("SJCDC"), SAN JUAN COUNTY, SAN JUAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ("SJRMC"), THOMAS C. HAVEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF SJCDC, DR. ERIC KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, CINDY KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants. Consolidated with COREY JONES, Personal Representative of the Estate of Sharon Jones Plaintiff, v. SAN JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ("SJCDC"), SAN JUAN COUNTY, SAN JUAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ("SJRMC"), THOMAS C. HAVEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF SJCDC, DR. ERIC KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, CINDY KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief Against Defendant San Juan County Detention Center, filed September 28, 2015 (Doc. 48 in Olga Salazar v. San Juan Cty. Detention Ctr., No. CIV 15-0417 JB/LF (D.N.M.)("Salazar v. San Juan"))("Motion"). The Court held a hearing on November 24, 2015. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Plaintiffs' requested preliminary injunction1 -- which asks the Court to order Defendant San Juan County Detention Center to provide immediate emergency care to those Plaintiffs suffering from severe medical conditions or, in the alternative, to appoint a special master to oversee medical treatment at the San Juan County Detention Center -- falls within one of the three disfavored categories of such injunctions; (ii) whether the Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their claim that the Defendants violated the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; (iii) whether the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm between now and a full trial on the merits if the Court does not issue the requested preliminary injunction; (iv) whether the injury that the Plaintiffs will sustain in the absence of the requested preliminary injunction outweighs the injury that the issuance of the requested preliminary injunction will cause the Defendants; and (v) whether issuing the requested preliminary injunction would be adverse to the public interest. As to the first issue, the Court concludes that the requested preliminary injunction falls into all three of the disfavored categories: it would arguably be a mandatory injunction, rather than a prohibitory one; it would change, rather than preserve, the status quo; and it would shortcut the trial process by providing the Plaintiffs with all the relief that they could hope to obtain from a full trial on the merits. As to the second issue, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not put forth evidenceindicating that they will have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits at trial. As to the third issue, the Court concludes that the harms that the requested injunction seeks to prevent would be irreparable. As to the fourth issue, the Court concludes that the balance of harms weighs in the Plaintiffs' favor. As to the fifth issue, the Court concludes that a preliminary injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Because failure on any of the four prongs necessitates denial of a preliminary injunction, the Court will deny the Motion.
Pursuant to rule 52(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court makes findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its disposition of the Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2), 65(d)(1). See Herrera v. Santa Fe Pub. Sch., 792 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1179 (D.N.M. 2011)(Browning, J.). "[T]he findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a court granting a preliminary injunction are not binding at trial on the merits." Attorney Gen. of Okla. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 565 F.3d 769, 776 (10th Cir. 2009)(quoting Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)). "The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to preliminary injunction hearings." Heideman v. S. Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1188 (10th Cir. 2003). Unlike in a motion for summary judgment, the Court can consider evidence outside the pleadings, including hearsay, when deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction. See Pharmanex, Inc. v. HPF, 221 F.3d 1352, at *3 (10th Cir. 2000)(unpublished)2(citing J. MOORE, MOORE'S FEDERALPRACTICE § 65.23 (1999)). Moreover, at summary judgment, the facts may turn out different and there may be genuine issues of material fact. The Court divides its findings of fact into four sections: first, the Court will introduce the parties; second, it will describe Plaintiff Paul Matamoros's incarceration at the San Juan County Detention Center; third, it will describe non-party Christopher Yarnell's incarceration at the San Juan County Detention Center; fourth, it will describe non-party James Dominguez' incarceration at the San Juan County Detention Center; and fifth, it will describe non-party Martin Veneno's incarceration at the San Juan County Detention Center.
1. The Plaintiffs3 are current or former inmates at Defendant San Juan County Detention Center. See Salazar v. San Juan, No. CIV 15-0417 JB/LF (D.N.M.), Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights and Wrongful Death ¶ 2, at 1-2, filed May 15, 2015 (Doc. 1)("Salazar Complaint"); Charles Carter v. San Juan Cty. Detention Ctr., No. CIV 15-0497 JB/LF (D.N.M.), Complaint ¶¶ 2-3, at 1-2, filed June 12, 2015 ("Carter v. San Juan")(Doc. 1)("CarterComplaint"); Corey Jones v. San Juan Cty. Detention Ctr., No. 15-0526 JB/LF (D.N.M.), Complaint ¶¶ 2-3, at 1-2, filed June 22, 2015 ("Jones v. San Juan")(Doc. 1)("Jones Complaint"); Burkee, et. al. v. San Juan Cty. Detention Ctr., No. CIV 15-0439 JB/LF (D.N.M.), Second Amended Complaint ¶ 1, at 2, filed July 8, 2015 (Burkee v. San Juan)(Doc. 27)("Burkee Complaint").
2. Plaintiff Olga Salazar serves as the personal representative of the Estate of Jesus Marquez, who was incarcerated at the San Juan County Detention Center, and was pronounced dead at the hospital after being transported there from the San Juan County Detention Center on March 3, 2015. See Salazar Complaint ¶¶ 1, 2, 71, at 1, 9.
3. Plaintiff Charles Carter serves as the personal representative of William "Billy" Carter, who died while incarcerated at the San Juan County Detention Center. Carter Complaint ¶¶ 1-3, at 1-2.
4. Plaintiff Corey Jones serves as the personal representative of the estate of Sharon Jones, who died while incarcerated at the San Juan County Detention Center. See Jones Complaint ¶¶ 1-3, at 1-2.
5. The remaining twenty-seven named plaintiffs in this lawsuit are individuals who were or are incarcerated at the San Juan County Detention Center between 2013 and the present. See Burkee Complaint ¶ 1, at 2.
6. One such plaintiff is Paul Matamoros, who is currently incarcerated at the San Juan County Detention Center. See Motion at 2-3. 7. Christopher Yarnell4 is not a party to this lawsuit, but is currently incarcerated at the San Juan County Detention Center. See Motion at 3-4.
8. James Dominguez is not a party to this lawsuit, but was an inmate at the San Juan County Detention Center in 2015. See Motion at 4.
9. Martin Veneno is not a party to this lawsuit, but was an inmate at the San Juan County Detention Center in 2015. See Transcript of Hearing at 12:11-13:5 (Burns, Court, Veneno)(taken November 24, 2015)("Tr.").5
10. The San Juan County Detention Center is a jail in Defendant San Juan County, state of New Mexico. See Carter Complaint ¶¶ 3,12, at 2-3. 11. Defendant San Juan Regional Medical Center is a New Mexico corporation doing business in New Mexico pursuant to a contract with San Juan County to provide medical care to inmates at the San Juan County Detention Center from February 17, 2014 to present. See Salazar Complaint ¶ 5, at 2.
12. Defendant Correctional Healthcare Companies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation doing business in New Mexico pursuant to a contract with San Juan County to provide medical care to inmates at the San Juan County Detention Center from February 17, 2014 to present. See Burkee Complaint ¶ 5, at 2.
13. Defendant Thomas C. Havel is the Administrator of the San Juan County Detention Center. See Salazar Complaint ¶ 6, at 2.
14. Defendants Dr. Eric Ketcham, Cindy Ketcham, and Katie Moore are employees of the San Juan Regional Medical Center. See Salazar Complaint ¶ 9, at 2.
15. Defendant Presbyterian Medical Services is a New Mexico nonprofit organization doing business in San Juan County pursuant to a contract with San Juan County to provide mental health services to inmates at the San Juan County Detention Center. See Burkee Complaint ¶ 7, at 2-3.
16. San Juan County is the public entity responsible for the San Juan County Detention Center. See Salazar...
To continue reading
Request your trial