Murphy v. Unknown Parties

Filing 69

ORDER DENYING as moot 60 MOTION for Leave to File and 67 MOTION to Compel filed by Steven Murphy. Defendants are to file a status update on Plaintiff's medical care to include updated medical records and Murphy's CT scan results. Status report due 12/23/2024. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/25/2024. (anp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STEVEN MURPHY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 24-cv-475-NJR

ANTHONY WILLS, CONNIE DOLCE,
MICHAEL MOLDENHAUER, ALISA
DEARMOND, DR. GLENN BABICH,
ANGELA CRAIN, JILIAN CRANE, and
DR. RAJESH SHARMA, 1
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff Steven Murphy, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, brings this action
for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Murphy alleges
that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by refusing to
provide medical care for his stomach pain and bleeding (Doc. 10, p. 3).
This matter is before the Court on Murphy’s Motion for Notice and Request to ReFile his Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 60). Both the medical defendants
(Doc. 63) and IDOC defendants (Doc. 65) filed a response to the motion. Murphy filed a

1 Dr. Glenn Babich, Michael Moldenhauer, Alisa Dearmond, and Jilian Crane have now identified

themselves by their proper names (Doc. 63). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CORRECT the
docket to reflect Defendants’ proper names.

1

reply (Doc. 66). He also recently filed a motion to compel related to his motion for
preliminary injunction (Doc. 67).
BACKGROUND
This is Murphy’s fourth motion for a preliminary injunction. He originally filed a
motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction in another of his
pending cases and the matter was opened as a new case (Docs. 1 and 2). Murphy was
directed to file a formal Complaint in the newly opened case (Doc. 5). He filed a
Complaint (Doc. 6) and subsequently filed two additional motions seeking injunctive
relief (Docs. 15, 26). Murphy’s Complaint alleged that he suffered from undiagnosed
stomach pain and bleeding (Doc. 10, p. 2). Although he requested tests to rule out
stomach cancer, as well as a referral to a GI specialist, all of his requests for care were
denied (Id.). He alleged Defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his condition
because they insisted he had ulcers and prescribed him medications that did not resolve
his symptoms (Id.).
On May 29, 2024, the Court held an evidentiary on Murphy’s pending motions for
injunctive relief (Doc. 49). Murphy’s motions were denied because the evidence
presented at the evidentiary hearing demonstrated that Murphy was receiving care for
his medical concerns. He acknowledged that he received an x-ray and blood test (Doc. 50,
p. 8). The blood test was normal, and the x-ray revealed constipation. Murphy received
medication to alleviate his constipation (Id. at pp. 8-9). Murphy did have high levels of
bilirubin, and Nurse Practitioner Alisa Dearmond informed the Court that Murphy was
scheduled for a CT scan to rule out any issues with his pancreas and liver (Id. at p. 9).
2

Because it was clear that Murphy was receiving medical care for his ailments, the Court
found that a preliminary injunction was not warranted.
On September 9, 2024, however, Murphy filed the pending motion for leave to refile his motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 60). Murphy argued that Dearmond was
required to submit Murphy’s test results to the Court, but she failed to comply with the
Court’s Order (Doc. 60, p. 1). Murphy further alleged that his CT scan scheduled for June
2024 was canceled in what Murphy believes was an act of retaliation by Dearmond (Id.).
He was also scheduled for an appointment with the nurse practitioner in August 2024,
but that appointment was also canceled by Dearmond and Crane (Id.). Murphy alleged
that Defendants were retaliating against him and refused to provide him with medical
care and diagnostic testing to determine the cause of his internal bleeding (Id. at pp. 1-2).
Murphy requested to re-file his motion for preliminary injunction to seek testing and
treatment.
In response to Murphy’s motion, Defendants Dr. Glenn Babich, Nurse Practitioner
(“NP”) Michael Moldenhauer, NP Alisa Dearmond, and NP Jilian Crane informed the
Court on the status of Murphy’s current medical care. According to Murphy’s medical
records, his CT scan was set for June 11, 2024 (Doc. 63-1, pp. 14, 17). He was also
scheduled to be placed in the infirmary the day prior to the CT scan (Id. at p. 17). But
when the nurse went to admit Murphy to the infirmary on June 10, 2024, in preparation
for his procedure, Murphy refused to be admitted (Id. at p. 18). In Murphy’s reply brief,
he argues that he did not refuse but that the infirmary was unable to accommodate his
protective custody status (Doc. 66, p. 1). Murphy also argues that he was told he did not
3

have to stay in the infirmary for one night and contends that his stay in the infirmary was
not necessary (Id.). Despite Murphy’s contention that he did not refuse placement in the
infirmary, he signed a refusal form dated June 10, 2024 (Doc. 63-1, p. 39).
But whether Murphy refused to be housed in the infirmary prior to his CT scan is
irrelevant because his refusal did not impact his scheduled CT scan. Murphy was allowed
to prepare for the furlough in his cell (Doc. 63-1, p. 18). Unfortunately, however,
Murphy’s CT scan was canceled the following day due to a security and transportation
issue (Doc. 63, p. 3). The CT scan was rescheduled for late September 2024 (Id.).
On August 5, 2024, Murphy presented to the healthcare unit with hemorrhoids
(Doc. 63-1, p. 23). He was prescribed hemorrhoid cream and directed to return if his
symptoms failed to improve within two weeks (Id.). On August 21, 2024, Murphy was
scheduled for a sick call appointment, but a note in his record indicates that he refused
the appointment (Id. at p. 24). The refusal form is signed by a correctional officer and
indicates that Murphy refused to sign the form (Id. at p. 40). On August 22, 2024,
Dearmond entered a note in Murphy’s medical records indicating that he was not seen
that day during the nurse practitioner line (Id. at p. 22).
The medical defendants noted that Murphy was scheduled for his CT scan at the
end of September and argued that he was not entitled to injunctive relief. The IDOC
defendants, including Angela Crain, Connie Dolce, and Anthony Wills filed a response
(Doc. 63) essentially adopting the medical defendants’ response. They also argued that
Murphy’s initial CT scan was canceled due to security and transportation issues and was
rescheduled for the end of September (Id.).
4

Murphy filed a reply brief (Doc. 66) refuting Defendants’ responses. He argued
that the Defendants lied to the Court and were denying him care as an act of retaliation.
Murphy argued that after his CT scan was canceled, the appointment was not
rescheduled until he filed his motion. He denied that he refused to be placed in the
infirmary prior to his CT scan or that there was a security or transportation issue at the
prison. He argued that other inmates were sent on medical furloughs on that date. He
also denied being prescribed hemorrhoid cream. Instead, he alleged that he was merely
told that he would be scheduled to see the nurse practitioner. Murphy further denied that
he refused his appointment with the nurse practitioner and argued that the refusal form
was falsified by defendants. Instead, Murphy alleged Officer Loesing, the officer who
signed the medical refusal, told Murphy that the nurse practitioner canceled his
appointment (Doc. 66, p. 2). Murphy further argued that the Court initially erred in
denying him a preliminary injunction because the defendants had no intention of
providing him with medical care.
Murphy also recently filed a motion to compel (Doc. 67). In that motion, he noted
that he received a CT scan on August 1, 2024, but had not yet received the results of that
test. He also argued that he had not seen a nurse practitioner or any other medical
provider. He argued that he was being retaliated against and denied medical care.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” for which there
must be a “clear showing” that a plaintiff is entitled to relief. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520
U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R Miller, & Mary Kay
5

Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §2948 (5th ed. 1995)). The purpose of such an
injunction is “to minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of
the lawsuit.” Faheem-El v. Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). A plaintiff has the
burden of demonstrating (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) no
adequate remedy at law; and (3) irreparable harm absent the injunction. Planned
Parenthood v. Commissioner of Indiana State Dep’t Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012).
As to the first hurdle, the Court must determine whether “plaintiff has any
likelihood of success—in other words, a greater than negligible chance of winning.”
AM General Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 311 F.3d 796, 804 (7th Cir. 2002). Once a
plaintiff has met his burden, the Court must weigh “the balance of harm to the parties if
the injunction is granted or denied and also evaluate the effect of an injunction on the
public interest.” Id.; Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 2013). “This equitable
balancing proceeds on a sliding-scale analysis; the greater the likelihood of success of the
merits, the less heavily the balance of harms must tip in the moving party’s favor.” Korte,
735 F.3d at 665. In addition, the Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that a preliminary
injunction must be “narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the
harm . . . ,” and “be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3626(a)(2). Finally, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), a preliminary
injunction would bind only the parties, their officers or agents, or persons in active
concert with the parties or their agents.

6

ANALYSIS
The Court finds that Murphy is not entitled to the injunctive relief he seeks because
he has already received all of the relief he requested. Murphy argued that he had not
received any of the results of his medical tests discussed at the Court’s May evidentiary
hearing, but the results of those tests were attached to Defendants’ response (Doc. 63-1).
Specifically, the medical records from his x-ray demonstrate that his vertebra were
normal (Id. at p. 26). Blood test results from the same time period were also attached to
Defendants’ response. Thus, he has now received the results of his prior tests.
Although Murphy’s motion for injunctive relief specifically sought a CT scan, his
most recent filing acknowledges that he received a CT scan (Doc. 67, p. 1). There appears
to be some discrepancy as to when the CT scan occurred, but Murphy’s latest motion
acknowledges that he has now received the requested CT scan (Doc. 60). 2 Further, there
is simply no evidence, other than Murphy’s own belief, that Defendants are attempting
to retaliate against Murphy. Defendants note that the original CT scan was canceled due
to security issues and was rescheduled. 3 Murphy acknowledges that he has now received
that scheduled CT scan. Thus, his request for injunctive relief is moot.

2 Murphy’s motion to compel alleges that he received his CT scan on August 1, 2024. But that date

predates his motion seeking a CT scan (Doc. 60) and predates Defendants’ responses (Docs. 63,
65). Further, Defendants indicated that Murphy’s CT scan was scheduled for the end of
September (Doc. 63, p. 4; 65, p. 2).
3 The Court notes that Defendants failed to provide any documentation supporting their
contention that the CT scan was canceled due to security and/or transportation issues. Nothing
in the medical records indicates that the appointment was canceled nor did Defendants attach an
affidavit from any official at the prison who would have knowledge of the scheduled medical
procedure. Although the reasoning for the cancellation of the CT scan is murky, all of the parties

7

Finally, Murphy notes in his motion to compel that he has not received the results
of his CT scan. The Court also has not received an update on Murphy’s current care. Thus,
the Court ORDERS Defendants to file a Notice with the Court on the current state of
Murphy’s medical care. Defendants should also attach updated medical records, to
include Murphy’s CT scan results. Defendants’ status update is due December 23, 2024.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Murphy’s motion to re-file (Doc. 60) and his
motion to compel (Doc. 67) are DENIED as moot. Defendants are DIRECTED to file a
Status Report with the Court with updated medical records to include Murphy’s recent
CT scan.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 25, 2024
___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

acknowledge that the CT scan was rescheduled, and Murphy admits that he has now received
the CT scan.

8