Mayweather-Brown v. Biggler et al

Filing 327

ORDER DENYING 313 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 12/16/2019. (bas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
QUINTIN J. MAYWEATHER-BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-2089-JD-MGG

STEFFANY BIGGLER, JHON PERRY,
DR. MATTHEWS, RN ROBBIN, and
GARY YODER,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Quintin J. Mayweather-Brown, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a motion (ECF
313) for preliminary injunction asserting prison medical staff made incomplete,
inaccurate, and false representations in his medical records while he was housed at the
Elkhart County Jail, and seeking an order that the Defendants be prevented from using
them in this action.
“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that
should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of
persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). To obtain a preliminary
injunction, the moving party must show: (1) he will suffer irreparable harm before the
final resolution of his claims; (2) available remedies at law are inadequate; and (3) he
has a likelihood of success on the merits. See BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola, 809 F.3d 317,
323–24 (7th Cir. 2015). The court then “weighs the competing harms to the parties if an
injunction is granted or denied and also considers the public interest.” Korte v. Sebelius,

735 F.3d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 2013). Furthermore, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
injunctive relief must be “narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to remedy
the constitutional violation, and must use the least intrusive means to correct the
violation of the federal right.” Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 681 (7th Cir. 2012).
The PLRA circumscribes the scope of the court’s authority to enter an
injunction in the corrections context. Where prison conditions are found to
violate federal rights, remedial injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn,
extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal
right, and use the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation
of the Federal right. This section of the PLRA enforces a point repeatedly
made by the Supreme Court in cases challenging prison conditions: Prison
officials have broad administrative and discretionary authority over the
institutions they manage.
Westefer, 682 F.3d at 683 (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).
In moving for injunctive relief, Mayweather-Brown asserts that, while he was
housed at the Elkhart County Jail from March 20, 2014, through January 19, 2016,
Health Services Administrator Robin Yohn and the prison’s medical staff repeatedly
made “incomplete, inaccurate, and false representations” about the severity of his
mental illness in his medical records. (ECF 313 at 1, 3.) He asserts that Yohn, Captain
John Perry, the Jail’s Commanding Officer, and Dr. Josh Mathew, a psychiatrist
employed by Correct Care Solutions, knew he suffered from a mental illness, but
refused to send him to the state psychiatric hospital or administer “involuntary
psychotropic medication to stabilize him.” (Id. at 3.) Instead, he claims they simply
chose to keep him at the Elkhart County Jail without appropriate medical treatment
where he continued to engage in acts of self-harm, subjecting him to cruel and unusual
punishment. (Id.)
2

Furthermore, Mayweather-Brown argues that defense counsel in this case used
his medical records as a “weapon” against him by submitting them in support of a
motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 3.) He claims that these inaccurate and false
medical records do not tell the truth about his condition because they misrepresent the
reality and severity of his mental illness. (Id. at 3-6.) Thus, Mayweather-Brown seeks
injunctive relief against the continued use of “inaccurate, incomplete, or flat out
subjective and/or biased medical records.” (Id. at 7.) He asks that the court order the
Defendants to identify and correct the false and incomplete records, expunge that
information from his records, enter a judgment of $6,500.00 against the Defendants, and
sanction defense counsel. (Id.)
Mayweather-Brown’s motion will be denied. First, the court has already granted
the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether he received
constitutionally adequate medical care while he was housed at the Elkhart County Jail.
(ECF 298.) In other words, the court found Mayweather-Brown’s medical care to be
objectively reasonable. Thus, the instant motion appears to be an attempt to relitigate
issues already decided by this court. Furthermore, Mayweather-Brown has not
produced any evidence to support his claim that Yohn and the prison’s medical staff
either altered or falsified his medical records by omitting relevant medical information
or incorporating inaccurate information about his mental illness. Whether a motion for
preliminary injunction or a motion to strike, the relief he seeks is unwarranted. As
noted by the court in its summary judgment order, the medical records constitute

3

evidence that support the fact that Mayweather-Brown received constitutionally
adequate medical care while he was housed at the Elkhart County Jail.
For these reasons, the motion for preliminary injunction (ECF 313) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on December 16, 2019
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4