Ali v. Markell et al

Filing 109

MEMORANDUM ORDER, The MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (D.I. 99 ) is DENIED. (See Order for Further Details). Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 10/29/2018. (nmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ROBERT SAUNDERS
a/k/a Shamsidin Ali,

)
)
)

)

Plaintiff,
V.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
) Civ. Action No. 15-1184-CFC
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington, thisJf

~ of October, 2018, having considered Plaintiff's motion

for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (D.I. 99);
IT IS ORDERED that the motion (D.I. 99) is denied, for the reasons that follow:
Plaintiff, Robert Saunders ("Saunders"), a prisoner housed at the James T.
Vaughn Correctional Center ("VCC"), Smyrna, Delaware, filed a civil rights lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On September 24, 2018, Saunders filed a motion for

injunctive relief with a supporting memorandum.

(D.I. 99, 100)

Therein, he seeks an

order halting Defendants from permitting clinicians from providing medical care outside
their areas of expertise and for Defendants to immediately hire physicians for the
infirmary and general inmate population.

Defendants oppose the motion.

(D.I. 107)

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) a likelihood of success
on the merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that
granting preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the non moving party;

1

and (4) that the public interest favors such relief.

Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Andrx

Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

"Preliminary injunctive relief

is 'an extraordinary remedy' and 'should be granted only in limited circumstances."'
(citations omitted).

Id.

Because of the intractable problems of prison administration, a

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. 2009) (citing Goff v.

Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).
Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to prove
any of the requisites to obtain injunctive relief including that he has not shown he is
likely to succeed on the merits, the evidence shows that Plaintiff receives treatment for
his medical conditions, and Plaintiff has failed to show that any state employees have
acted with deliberate indifference to any serious risk of harm.
While not clear, Plaintiff seems to complain that he is not being seen by a
physician, physicians are providing care outside of what Plaintiff deems is their area of
expertise, or that the VCC is not adequately staffed with physicians.
indication, however, that Plaintiff is not receiving medical care.

There is no

Indeed, he indicates

that inmates are provided treatment by nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
"[A] prisoner has no right to choose a specific form of medical treatment," so long
as the treatment provided is reasonable.

Lasko v. Watts, 373 F. App'x 196, 203 (3d

Cir. 2010) (quoting Harrison v. Barkley, 219 F.3d 132, 138-140 (2d Cir. 2000)).

An

inmate's claims against members of a prison medical department are not viable under§
1983 where the inmate receives continuing care but believes that more should be done

2

by way of diagnosis and treatment and maintains that options available to medical
personnel were not pursued on the inmate's behalf.
107 (1976).

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

Finally, "mere disagreement as to the proper medical treatment" is

insufficient to state a constitutional violation.

See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 235

(3d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
Given the current record, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated the
likelihood of success on the merits.

Because Plaintiff has failed to show the likelihood

of success on the merits, his motion for injunctive relief will be denied.

3