Rodriguez v. Schanne et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 3/9/2017. (lmm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JOHN L. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 16-240-LPS

v.

CONNECTION HEALTH CARE, et al.,
Defendants.

John L. Rodriguez, James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

March ~ , 2017
Wilmington, Delaware

MAK

ng t.u 11
tJv

()

-r

I___,;I

I) /l
Q____ ~I j' / -

'-----

STARK, U.S. DistrictJudge:
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff John L. Rodriguez ("Plaintiff'), an inmate housed at the James T. Vaughn

Correctional Center ("VCC") in Smyrna, Delaware, filed this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
raising medical needs claims. He proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in Jonna

pauperis. Before the Court are Plaintiffs motions for a temporary restraining order/preliminary
injunction. (D.I. 16, 26)

II.

BACKGROUND
On January 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief claiming that he is denied

medical and mental health treatment. (D.I. 16) Plaintiff makes no specific request, but it appears he
seeks medical care. Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot meet the
requisites for injunctive relief. (D.I. 23) Plaintiff filed a second motion for injunctive relief on
March 7, 2017. (D.I. 26) The motion seeks medical and mental health treatment, and is basically a
reply to Defendants' opposition.

III.

STANDARDS OF LAW
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 Entepnses, Inc., 176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d
Cir. 1999). "[F]ailure to establish any element in [a plaintiffs] favor renders a preliminary injunction
inappropriate." NutraSweet II, 176 F.3d at 153. Because of the intractable problems of prison
administration, a request for injunctive relief in the prison context must be viewed with considerable

1

caution. See Abraham v. Danberg, 322 F. App'x 169, 170 (3d Cir. Apr. 24, 2009) (citing Geffv. Hatper,
60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).

IV.

DISCUSSION
Medical records and grievances indicate that Plaintiff is receiving medical and mental health

treatment. (See D.I. 23, Carr Deel., D.I. 26 at Exs. A-C) In 2016, Plaintiff was evaluated by outside
urologists on at least two occasions, underwent medical procedures, received medical, and follow-up
care. He undergoes mental health sessions, and he is prescribed psychotropic medication. He is
also prescribed pain medicine. Finally, he has received dental care and was referred to an oral
surgeon.
The record does not demonstrate the likelihood of success on the merits. Nor is there an
indication that at the present time, Plaintiff 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. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff's
motions for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction. (D.I. 16, 26)

V.

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court will deny Plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining

order/preliminary injunction. (D.I. 16, 26)
An appropriate Order follows.

2