Kostyshyn v. Markell et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 1 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Peter Kostyshyn. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 5/31/13. (cla, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GOVERNOR JACK MARKELL, et al.,
) Civ. No. 13-825-SLR
, 2013, having considered plaintiffs
request for emergency injunction (D.I. 1);
IT IS ORDERED that the motion (D. I. 1) is denied, for the reasons that follow:
1. Background. Plaintiff Peter Kostyshyn ("plaintiff'), a prisoner incarcerated at
the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution ("HRYCI"), Wilmington, Delaware, filed a
complaint on May 9, 2013, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D. I. 1) Therein, he seeks
emergency injunctive relief to have access to heart medication. On May 10, 2013, the
court ordered defendants to respond and address plaintiffs allegations regarding lack
of access to heart medication, as well as any other issues defendants believed
pertinent. (D. I. 3) Defendants responded on May 15, 2013 and filed a supplemental
response on May 28, 2013 with plaintiff's medical records and the affidavit of HRYCI
Health Services Administrator Kristin Hernandez ("Hernandez"). (0.1. 8, 9, 14)
2. Standard. 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 Enterprises, Inc., 176 F. 3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999)
("NutraSweet If'). The elements also apply to temporary restraining orders. See
NutriSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enterprises., Inc., 112 F.3d 689, 693 (3d Cir. 1997)
("NutraSweet /") (a temporary restraining order continued beyond the time permissible
under Rule 65 must be treated as a preliminary injunction, and must conform to the
standards applicable to preliminary injunctions). "[F]ailure to establish any element in [a
plaintiff's] favor renders a preliminary injunction inappropriate." NutraSweet II, 176 F.3d
at 153. Furthermore, because of the intractable problems of prison administration, a
request for injunctive relief in the prison context must be viewed with considerable
caution. Rush v. Correctional Med. Services, Inc., 287 F. App'x 142, 144 (3d Cir. 2008)
(not published) (citing Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).
3. Discussion. Plaintiff is currently housed in administrative segregation for
violating inmate rules. He states that he requires nitroglycerin medication, that he is not
being given the medication, and that Dr. Wallace asked why plaintiff was not allowed
K.O.P (i.e., keep on person) the medically necessary medication. Defendants oppose
the motion on the grounds that plaintiff has received substantial medical treatment for
his heart condition and that plaintiff refuses to comply with the medical provider's
directives by refusing medical testing and refusing medication. Defendants argue that
plaintiff attempts to circumvent the medical provider by petitioning this court for K.O.P.
medication instead of complying with the treatment plan.
4. The medical records submitted and Hernandez's affidavit indicate that plaintiff
is receiving ongoing care and treatment and his heart condition is followed and
monitored. (0.1. 14) The records further indicate that plaintiff is non-compliant with the
medical regime offered him. In light of the exhibits submitted by defendants, the court
finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits.
Notably, there is no indication in plaintiffs medical records that, at the present time, he
is in danger of suffering irreparable harm. Plaintiff has neither demonstrated the
likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he demonstrated irreparable harm to justify
the issuance of immediate injunctive relief.
5. Conclusion. Therefore, the motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
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?