Ashford v. Straughn et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 26 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 2/4/2013. (srw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
CHARLES ASHFORD, ADC #133975,
BILLY STRAUGHN, Warden, Maximum
Security Unit, ADC; et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Charles Ashford, a state inmate at the Maximum Security Unit of the Arkansas
Department of Correction, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Warden
Billy Straughn and ADC Director Ray Hobbs, alleging failure to protect and deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs.
Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’ second Motion for Preliminary Injunctive
Relief,1 in which he claims that Nurse Murray refused to deliver his aspirin and Zantac during a pill
call on January 17, 2013 (Doc. No. 26). Plaintiff asks the Court to order the ADC to cease denying
him medical treatment.
In considering whether to grant injunctive relief, the Court must consider the following
factors: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance between the harm
and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on the other party litigants; (3) the probability
Plaintiff’s first Motion, in which he alleged that he was stabbed on two occasions by
inmates, and requested a transfer to another prison, was denied by Order dated January 8, 2013 (Doc.
that the movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest. Dataphase Systems, Inc., 640
F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc). No single factor is dispositive, but the movant must
establish a threat of irreparable harm. Id. Without a finding of irreparable injury, a preliminary
injunction should not be issued. Randolph v. Rogers, 170 F.3d 850, 856 (8th Cir. 1999). “The
burden of proving that a preliminary injunction should be issued rests entirely with the movant.”
Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995). The Court in Goff also addressed the district
court’s role in inmate applications for injunctive relief as follows: “[I]n the prison context, a request
for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution because ‘judicial restraint is especially
called for in dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison administration’...[t]he
courts should not get involved unless either a constitutional violation has already occurred or the
threat of such a violation is both real and immediate.” Id. at 520-21, quoting Rogers v. Scurr, 676
F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982).
The Court finds Plaintiff does not present any facts or evidence to support a finding of
irreparable harm as a result of a one-time denial of aspirin and Zantac by a non-party. Plaintiff also
does not present facts or evidence to show how the named Defendants were involved in the incident
which occurred, and provides no facts to support the need for a hearing under Dataphase. Absent
such, the Court is reluctant to interfere with prison administration, as set forth in Goff.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief
(Doc. No. 26) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of February, 2013.
JOE J. VOLPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?