McCardell v. Harewood et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM re 9 Motion for Injunctive Relief for medical care and a medical diet. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 1/30/2018. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES N. MCCARDELL,
Plaintiff,

v.

: Civil Action No. 17-1121-RGA

ADRIAN HAREWOOD, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
1.

Introduction.

Plaintiff James N. Mccardell, an inmate at the James T.

Vaughn Correctional Center ("VCC") in Smyrna, Delaware, filed this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 1).

Plaintiff appears prose and has granted leave to proceed

in forma pauperis.

On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive

(D.I. 6).

relief for medical care and a medical diet. (D.I. 9). The Court ordered the VCC

I
I

I

Warden and the medical health care provider, Connections Community Support
Programs, Inc., to respond to the motion.
2.

Both oppose.

(D.I. 12, 24).

Motion for Injunctive Relief. 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

i
I

I

I
I

i

I

J

f

injunction is in the public interest." Nutrasweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enterprises, Inc., 176
F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999). The elements also apply to temporary restraining orders.
See NutriSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enterprises., Inc., 112 F.3d 689, 693 (3d Cir. 1997) (a

I

i

I
'

(

t

f

I

temporary restraining order continued beyond the time permissible under Rule 65 must
be treated as a preliminary injunction, and must conform to the standards applicable to
preliminary injunctions).

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)).
3.

Background. As set forth in the first amended complaint (D.I. 8), on

December 15, 2015, Plaintiff was shot and sustained injuries that require him to use a
colostomy bag and a suprapubic catheter.

Plaintiff has not seen a GI physician or

urologist in over a year and suffers from constant urinary tract infections which result in
the frequent administration of antibiotics.

Plaintiff alleges the use of antibiotics is

harming his kidneys, and he is developing an immunity to the antibiotics.
surgery is required to correct his problems.

He contends

In addition, Plaintiff is unable to digest

numerous fruits and vegetables and, as a result, is unable to consume the food served
at the VCC.

Plaintiff alleges he has been advised that Defendants cannot order the

type of food he requires.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for medical care and a medical

diet.
4.

In opposition to Plaintiff's motion, Warden Metzger and Connections

provided the affidavits of Marc D. Richman, Bureau Chief for the Delaware Department
of Correction, Bureau of Correctional Healthcare Services, and Christopher Moen, Chief
Medical Officer for Connections. (D.I. 12, 24) The affidavits indicate Connections has
sought an outside specialist for Plaintiff to treat his urinary issues. The urologist who

performed Plaintiff's initial procedures refused to continue care, and suggested Plaintiff
see out-of-state specialists for his rather complex injuries. There are no urologists in
the State of Delaware willing to see and to treat Plaintiff.

As a result, Connections

made several attempts with Temple University urologists to consult and provide
treatment to Plaintiff.
2017.

Temple University declined to provide care to Plaintiff in October,

In November, 2017, Connections contacted urologists at Johns Hopkins

University regarding Plaintiffs medical care, and it is actively seeking to schedule a
consultation.

Dr. Moen is in the process of securing an agreement with Johns Hopkins

University, so urologists there can examine and provide further medical care to Plaintiff.
In addition, Dr. Moen states that he does not believe Plaintiff requires a specialized diet
because of his colostomy or his urinary infections.
5.

In light of the unrefuted affidavits submitted by the VCC Warden and

Connections, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not met the requirements for
injunctive relief.

Medical care has been provided, and specialty care is being sought

for Plaintiff, despite the difficulties encountered by Connections. As a result, Plaintiff
has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, and has failed to demonstrate
irreparable harm.
6.

Therefore, the Court will deny the motion.

Conclusion.

injunctive relief.

For the above reasons, the Court will deny the motion for

(D.I. 9). A separate order shall issue.

United States

i~