Fatir v. Coupe et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM ORDER, motion (D.I. 5 ) is denied. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 7/5/2016. (cna)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

AMIR FATIR,

Plaintiff,
Civ. Action No. 16-315-GMS

V.

COMMISSIONER ROBERT COUPE,
et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

At Wilmington, this

day of

,2016, having considered the

plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction (D.I. j);
IT IS ORDERED that the motion (D.I. 5) is denied, for the reasons that follow:

The plaintiff. Amir Fatir ("Fatif'), 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
May 23, 2016, Fatir filed a motion for injunctive relief seeking medical treatment, special visit
consideration, the right to practice his religion, a new prison classification, and the right to use
the toilet during recreation. The court ordered a response only as to the medical treatment issue
wherein Fatir asserts that he has been approved, but has not seen, an outside ophthalmologist.
Fatir states that if his left eye is not properly treated, he may lose sight in the eye.

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 nonmoving party; 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 limitedcircumstances.'" Id. (citations omitted). Because of the
intractable problemsof prison administration, a request for injunctiverelief in the prison context
must be viewed with considerable caution. Abraham v. Danberg, 322 F. App'x 169, 170 (3d Cir.
2009) (unpublished) (citing Goffv. Harper^ 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).

Warden David Pierce opposes the motion and provides the declaration of Dr. Vincent
Carr ("Dr. Carr"), who oversees the healthcare provided to inmates in Delaware Department of
Correction ("DOC") custody through its medical service contract provider. (D.I. 13, ex. A.) Dr.
Carr states that he reviewed Fatir's medical file and believes that Fatir is being provided

appropriate medical care for his eye-related issues. {Id.) Dr. Carr states that Fatir was seen by an
in-house optometrist on July 21,2015, who recommended a retinal specialist consult to rule out a
retinal detachment or tear. {Id.) Fatir saw an outside physician at Delaware Eye Care on

September 8,2015. The examination revealed no apparent detachment but, nonetheless, it was
recommended that Fatir be seen by a retinal specialist. {Id.) On October 26, 2015, Fatir saw a

retinal specialist. {Id.) On November 3, 2015, Fatir was seen by an in-house nurse practitioner.
{Id.) Medical notes indicate a diagnosis of posterior vitreous (not a retinal) detachment and no
treatment was recommended. {Id.)

"[A] prisoner has no right to choose a specific form of medical treatment," so long as the
treatment provided is reasonable. 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 by way of
diagnosis and treatment and maintains that options available to medical personnel were not

pursued on the inmate's behalf. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976). Finally, "mere

disagreement as to the proper medical treatment" is insufficient to state a constitutional violation.
See Spruill v. GilUs, 372 F.3d 218, 235 (3d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Dr. Carr's affidavit
indicates that Fatir was seen by several specialists for his eye condition, with the determination
that no further treatment was recommended. There is nothing before the court that indicates the
treatment provided was not reasonable.
Given the record before the court, Fatir has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on

the merits. Therefore, the court will deny the motion for injunctive relief.

UNIED STATES DISTRI