DuPree v. Jane Doe 1 et al

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM ORDER - denying re 51 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by John Randolph DuPree, Sr. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 6/7/12. (rwc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JOHN RANDOLPH DUPREE, SR.,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 10-351-LPS

v.
JANE DOE 1, et al. ,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/
Preliminary Injunction. (D.I. 51) For the reasons given below, the Court will deny the motion.

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff John Randolph DuPree, Sr. ("Plaintiff'), a prisoner housed at the James T.

Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. On May 23,2012, he filed a motion for

injunctive reliefto obtain medical care. (D.I. 51) Defendant Correctional Medical Services, Inc.
("CMS") opposes the motion. (D.I. 53)

II.

LEGAL STANDARDS
"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only if:

( 1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in irreparable harm to the
plaintiff; (3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the defendant; and
(4) granting the injunction is in the public interest." NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters. , Inc. , 176
F.3d 151 , 153 (3d Cir. 1999). Because ofthe intractable problems of prison administration, a

1

request for injunctive relief in the prison context must be viewed with considerable caution.

Abraham v. Danberg, 322 F. App'x 169, 170 (3d Cir. Apr. 24, 2009) (not published) (citing Goff
v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).

III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks immediate medical care from Correct Care Solutions ("CCS") and a no-

contact order against Dr. Linda Galef-Surdo. Neither are defendants in his action, although there
is a pending motion to amend to add CCS as a defendant. (See D.l. 47) CCS is the current
contract medical services provider for the Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC").
Defendant CMS formerly provided medical care to DOC inmates but ceased doing so as
of June 30, 2010. (See D.l. 53) The instant motion is not directed towards CMS. Nonetheless,
CMS opposes the motion on the grounds that CMS cannot provide the relief requested.
After reviewing the motion, opposition, and record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not
demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Nor is there any indication that, at the
present time, Plaintiff is in danger of suffering irreparable harm. Therefore, the Court will deny
the motion.

IV.

CONCLUSION
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 51) is DENIED.

ATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 7, 2012

2