Gilliana v. Watson et al
ORDER: Based on the findings and fact and conclusions of law in this Order, as well as those made in the hearing, Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Retraining Order, 2 , is denied. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 6/1/2015. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
ALEXANDER G. GILLIANA
RANDY WATSON, Warden, Varner Unit,
Arkansas Department of Corrections, et al.
Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 2), which was
the subject of a hearing held yesterday. Ms. Christine Cryer appeared on behalf of the three
ADC defendants, and Ms. Michelle Odum appeared for Correct Car Solutions. Ms. Odum did
not appear on behalf of the two named nurses, Correct Care Solution’s employees. She claimed
they had not been served. However, one of the nurses – Amanda King – was in the courtroom.
Plaintiff has had life-long kidney trouble, and received a transplant 2005. Since the
transplant, he must take anti-rejection drugs every twelve hours. Defendants concede that they
were aware of Plaintiff’s condition and that his anti-rejection medications are medically
necessary. Except for a two day respite in late February, Plaintiff has been in custody since
December 2014. He has been housed at the jail in Garland County and prisons in Calico Rock,
Malvern, and Gould, Arkansas (“Varner”). Plaintiff was at Varner from late March to April 2,
2015 and again from April 22 to present. Events at Varner are the subject of this case.
It is undisputed that there have been numerous occasions when Plaintiff has not had his
medications, as prescribed. For example, when arriving to Varner, Plaintiff went a week without
his medications, after repeatedly being told that it was on order and would be in the next day.
Plaintiff filed an emergency grievance on March 30, 2015, and a nurse drove to the Garland
County jail to retrieve Plaintiff’s medications, which had been left behind.1 When Plaintiff
returned to Varner on April 22, he went without his medications only on the first day. Since his
return, the issues appear to involve “pill call” and whether Plaintiff is getting his medications at
the appropriate twelve-hour intervals.
Defendants contend that Plaintiff either was not showing up at “pill call” or refused to
take the medications. However, Plaintiff asserts that if he did not show for pill call, it was
because the interval was too short and if he refused to take a medication, it was because the
dosage was wrong.
For the purpose of the temporary restraining order, the issue is irreparable harm.
However, Plaintiff testified that since filing this lawsuit his medications have been disbursed as
prescribed, so there is no irreparable harm. Additionally, Defendants assured the Court that they
would provide Plaintiff his medications in the intervals prescribed. In view of the critical
importance of the timely administration of the medications, this assurance is very important. All
personnel of each defendant should be carefully instruction as to the importance of the
administering of the right medicine at the precisely proper intervals.
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law above, as well as those made in the
hearing yesterday, Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2015.
/s/ Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant’s Ex. 16.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?