McCardell v. Harewood et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/19/2018. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMES N. MCCARDELL,
Plaintiff,
: Civil Action No. 17-1121-RGA

V.

CONNECTIONS COMMUNITY
SUPPORT PROGRAMS, INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM

1.

Introduction.

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

Vaughn Correctional Center 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.

(D. I. 6).

On October 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second motion for

injunctive relief for medical care.
2.

(D.I. 44).

Defendant opposes the motion.

(D.I. 45).

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
injunction is in the public interest." Nutrasweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enterprises, Inc., 176
F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999). "[F]ailure to establish any element in [a plaintiff's] favor
renders a preliminary injunction inappropriate." Id. at 153. The standards for
obtaining a temporary restraining order are the same.

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).

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.
designated by a medical specialist.

Plaintiff seeks specialized medical care

(D.I. 44). Connections responds that, despite

some challenges in having an outside specialist treat Plaintiff for his urinary related
issues, it was able to secure a Johns Hopkins' urologist for that purpose.

Plaintiff has

been seen by the urologist and is currently scheduled for further follow-up care and
treatment at Johns Hopkins.
5.

(D.I. 45).

Based upon Connections' representations, the Court concludes that

Plaintiff has not met the requirements for injunctive relief.

Medical care has been

provided, Plaintiff has been seen by a specialist, and follow-up care is scheduled. As a
result, Plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, and has failed to
demonstrate irreparable harm. Therefore, the Court will deny the motion.
6.

Conclusion.

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

injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order.
issue.

l~ ,

November
2018
Wilmington, Delaware

(D.I. 44). A separate order shall