Chapman v. Connection's Medical CSP Inc. et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying 29 MOTION Injunctive Relief. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/14/2016. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JONATH K. CHAPMAN, SR.,
Plaintiff,
: Civ. No. 15-720-RGA

v.

CONNECTION'S MEDICAL CSP, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington, this

Jt

day of June, 2016, having considered Plaintiff's motion

for injunctive relief (D.I. 29),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, as follows:
Plaintiff Jonath K. Chapman, Sr., a former inmate at Central Violation Center in
Smyrna, Delaware, now released (see Civ. Act. No. 16-158-RGA (D.I. 9)), filed a motion
,

for injunctive relief for Defendant Connection's Medical CSP, Inc. to take him to his
"original" orthopedic surgeon. Defendants oppose.
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-MarEnterprises, Inc., 176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999). "[F]ailure to establish any
element in [a plaintiff's] favor renders a preliminary injunction inappropriate." Id.
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) (citing Goff v.
Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).

Connections argues that Plaintiff has failed to meet the requisites for injunctive
relief. Connections refers to the fact that Plaintiff received continuing medical treatment
for his conditions and that he also received physical therapy. It argues that because
Plaintiff receives treatment, he has not shown a probability of success on the merits.
Dr. DuShuttle notes that the instant motion does not seek action from him, and adopts
Connections' position.
Given Plaintiff's release from prison, his motion is moot. In addition, upon review
of Plaintiff's motion, as well as the evidence of record, the Court concludes that Plaintiff
has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits. Notably, Plaintiff
indicates that, while incarcerated, he received continuing medical treatment, albeit not
to his liking, and this weighs against a finding of deliberate indifference. See Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-05 (1976) (an inmate must allege (i) a serious medical need

and (ii) acts or omissions by prison officials that indicate deliberate indifference to that
need).
Therefore, the court DENIES the motion. (D.I. 29).

2