Bradley v. U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 51

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: Mr. Bradley's Objections (#41) to the Recommendations are overruled. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Recommendation and DENIES Mr. Bradley's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction 15 . by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 6/5/14.(msksec, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00013-MSK-MJW
MATTHEW BRADLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Agency;
MR. DAVID BERKEBILE, Warden ADX;
DR. NIXON ROBERTS, Dentist/ADX Florence; and
MR. PELTON, Health Services Administrator;
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to the March 24, 2014
Recommendation (#34) of the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff Matthew Bradley’s “Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order/ And Or Preliminary Injunction” (#15) be denied. Mr. Bradley
filed timely Objections (#41) to the Recommendation.
I.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Bradley, a prisoner in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), asserts
in his pro se Complaint (#1) that Defendants failed to provide him with timely and/or adequate
dental treatment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.1 According to Mr. Bradley, “his
teeth are diseased and very painful making him unable to eat, causing him to lose weight and
1

The Court is mindful of Mr. Bradley’s pro se status, and accordingly, reads his pleadings and
filings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21, 92 S.Ct. 594 (1972); see also
Trackwell v. United States Govt, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007).

have headaches and unable to maintain his health.” He further asserts that the “failure to receive
adequate and timely dental treatment is allowing what teeth [he] has to degenerate and pain to
worsen and spread, that will eventually require extraction and perhaps further extraordinary
invasive treatment.”
On February 5, 2014, Mr. Bradley filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”). The Motion asserts that injunctive relief is necessary
to stop infection from spreading to all of Mr. Bradley’s teeth. To that end, Mr. Bradley seeks an
injunction directing Defendants to (i) allow Mr. Bradley “to be treated by a dentist whom is not a
party hereto or affiliated with defendants for his dental condition” and to follow “the dentist[’s]
orders and follow up treatments needed”; (ii) “require the treating dentist to write a summary of
findings and treatment and what follow up treatment is needed”; (iii) take photographs of Mr.
Bradley’s “mouth and dental condition before and after treatment”; and (iv) require Defendants
to “in the future provide [Mr.] Bradley timely and adequate dental treatment within 48-hours of
his request.” The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge.
The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation found that Mr. Bradley “failed to demonstrate,
clearly and unequivocally, that his entitled to preliminary injunctive relief” because he “failed to
allege specific facts that demonstrate that he will suffer future injury that is irreparable if no
preliminary injunction is issued.” Specifically, the Magistrate Judge concluded that (i) Mr.
Bradley’s allegations “only implicate something [he] fears may occur at some indefinite time in
the future” and (ii) “the spread of infection if certain of his teeth are not extracted [] no longer
exists” because Mr. Bradley had several teeth extracted after filing the Motion.
Mr. Bradley filed timely Objections (#41) to the Recommendation.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive motion, the parties
may file specific, written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the
recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The district court reviews de
novo determination those portions of the recommendation to which a timely and specific
objection is made. See United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop. Known as 2121 E. 30th St., 73
F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).
Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that should only be granted when the moving
party clearly and unequivocally demonstrates its necessity. See Schrier v. Univ. of Colo., 427
F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir.2005). A party requesting injunctive relief must clearly establish four
elements: (i) the party will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues; (ii) the
threatened injury outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing
party; (iii) the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest; and (4) there is a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Id.
Certain types of preliminary injunctions are disfavored and, therefore, require that the
movant satisfy a heightened burden of showing that the factors support the issuance of an
injunction: those that (i) disturb the status quo, (ii) are mandatory as opposed to prohibitory, or
(iii) afford the movant substantially all of the relief that they may recover after a determination of
the merits. See O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973, 975
(10th Cir. 2004).
III.

ANALYSIS

Mr. Bradley objects to Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that he failed to establish
irreparable harm sufficient to necessitate injunctive relief. Specifically, although Mr. Bradley

acknowledges that since filing the Complaint he has received dental care—including the
extraction of some of his teeth—he objects to the Magistrate Judge’s reliance on this fact in
concluding that Mr. Bradley had failed to show irreparable harm.2 He argues that he will still
suffer irreparable harm because “[t]he extraction fails to address [the] infection in [his] gums and
large lumps of bone cutting [him] when he attempts to eat.”
However, Mr. Bradley’s argument fails in two respects. First, Mr. Bradley has not
shown that the infection of his gums “is of such imminence that there is a clear and present need
for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm.” See Heideman v. S. Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d
1182, 1189 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting Prairie Band of Potowatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d
1234, 1250 (10th Cir. 2001)) (emphasis in original). Second, he has not shown that the care
received from an unaffiliated dentist would be different than the care that he is currently
receiving. Accordingly, Mr. Bradley has not met his burden of establishing that he will suffer
irreparable injury if no preliminary injunction is issued.

2

Mr. Bradley also asserts that he “is not requesting he receive specialist care, only adequate
care,” in an apparent attempt to distinguish the facts of his case from those in Tuttamore v.
Lappin, 429 F. App’x 687, 692 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished). Construed liberally, it appears
that Mr. Bradley objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Mr. Bradley must satisfy a
heightened burden of showing that the factors support the issuance of an injunction. However,
the crucial fact in Tuttamore was that the plaintiff was requesting injunctive relief that was
mandatory rather than prohibitory, not that he was requesting to see a specialist. See id. Here, as
in Tuttamore, requiring the BOP to provide Mr. Bradley with care from an unaffiliated dentist
would amount to a mandatory alteration of the status quo. Thus, the Magistrate Judge
appropriately applied a higher level of scrutiny to Mr. Bradley’s request than the already
cautious examination normally undertaken when the Court is confronted with a request for
injunctive relief.

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, Mr. Bradley’s Objections (#41) to the Recommendation are
overruled. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Recommendation and DENIES Mr. Bradley’s
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (#15).
Dated this 5th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger
Chief United States District Judge