McNeill v. Snow et al.
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 4/26/2017. (nmg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DALE KEVIN MCNEILL,
DONALD SNOW, et al.,
) Civ. Action No. 16-757-GMS
The plaintiff, Dale Kevin McNeill ("McNeill"), an inmate at the Howard R. Young
Correctional Institution ("HRYCI"), Wilmington, Delaware, commenced this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 29, 2016.
On March 15, 2017, McN eill filed a letter/motion for injunctive relief seeking medical
care for injuries he sustained on March 7, 2017 when he slipped and fell while at work in the
kitchen. (D.I. 12.) McNeill also refers to his medical condition as a result of a May 17, 2015
assault. McNeill states that his condition is such that he should not be forced to work in the
kitchen but, if he refuses, he will receive a write-up and be placed in the hole. Warden Steven
Wesley ("Warden Wesley") opposes. (D.I. 16, 17.)
ST AND ARD OF REVIEW
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 limited circumstances."' Id. (citations omitted). 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2009) (unpublished) (citing Goffv. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995)).
Warden Wesley states that there is no documentation that McNeil! was injured in the
kitchen. McNeil! did not submit a grievance regarding the kitchen conditions and there are no
incident reports documenting a fall or injury in the kitchen. Medical records submitted to the
court indicate that McNeil! was triaged on March 9, 2017 with a swollen right knee and ankle,
and, on March 14, 2017, when he complained of back and knee discomfort. (D.I. 17-1 at 40, 42.)
He was seen by medical on March 21, 201 7 and complained of pain and swelling in the right
knee and since March 7, 2017. (Id. at 1.) McNeil! presented a history that he slipped, but did not
fall, he pulled something, and his knee popped. McNeil! also indicated that his ankle "has been
like this" since 2015. (Id.) McNeil! asked to see a provider regarding his condition.
"[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. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 235 (3d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
Notably, McNeill's motion for injunctive relief is dated March 12, 2017 and, it seems,
was filed prematurely in light of the fact that his medical records indicate he received medical
care on March 14 and 21, 2017. Given the record before the court, McNeill has not
demonstrated that he will suffer irreparable harm if the motion is denied or the likelihood of
success on the merits. Therefore, injunctive relief is not appropriate.
For the above reasons, the court will deny the plaintiffs letter/motion for injunctive
relief. (D.I. 12.)
An appropriate order will be entered.
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?