ROWE v. HYSELL et al
ORDER - denying 45 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 45 Motion for TRO. *** SEE ORDER***. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 7/25/2012. Copy Mailed. (CKM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
JEFFREY ALLEN ROWE,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HYSELL, et al.,)
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction
“[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) (citation omitted). An
injunction is an equitable remedy so its issuance is one which falls within the sound
discretion of the district court. See Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329 (1944). A
court may issue a stay pending appeal or an order granting interim injunctive relief
only when the movant demonstrates: (a) that he is likely to succeed on the merits;
(b) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;
(c) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (d) that an injunction is in the
public interest. Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). The “movant has
the burden to show that all four factors . . . weigh in favor of the injunction.” Davis
v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1292 (D.C.Cir. 2009).
In this case, a state prisoner seeks a preliminary injunction requiring the
defendants to continue to adhere to a specific treatment regimen for his Reflux
Esophagitis condition. Specifically, the plaintiff seeks an order requiring Michael
Mitcheff, D.O., “to make sure medical staff at the Pendleton Correctional Facility
(or any facility Plaintiff may be transferred to) does not stop treating Plaintiff’s
Reflux Esophagitis condition,” and requiring Dr. Mitcheff “and all [his] co-workers .
. . to either issue Plaintiff bubble packs of Zantac so that he can self-administer
them as needed . . . or dispense Plaintiff’s Zantac to him shortly before or shortly
after 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.”
The Eighth Amendment imposes a duty on prison officials to provide medical
care to inmates. Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520
U.S. 1230 (1997). In order for an inmate to state a claim under § 1983 for medical
mistreatment or denial of medical care, the prisoner must allege “acts or omissions
sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). It is well-settled that while incarcerated,
an inmate is not entitled to the best possible care or to receive particular treatment
of his choice. See Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 267 (7th Cir. 1997).
There are various reasons why the issuance of a preliminary injunction such
as sought by the plaintiff is not warranted. First, the perpetuation of medical care
being provided to an inmate is hardly a subject wanting review or intervention by a
federal court. Second, in seeking a particular form of treatment the plaintiff seeks
that which the Eighth Amendment does not compel. Third, the relief sought by the
plaintiff would not be consistent with the Supreme Court’s directions that “federal
courts . . . afford appropriate deference and flexibility to state officials trying to
manage a volatile environment[.]” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483 (1995).
Fourth, a preliminary injunction involving conditions of confinement at a prison
must be “narrowly drawn, extend[ ] no further than necessary to correct the
violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct
the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). The motion for
preliminary injunction seeks relief of such scope—for example, to extend to the
plaintiff even if he transferred to another prison--that it is highly unlikely this
statutory command could be satisfied.
The motion for a preliminary injunction and for a temporary restraining
order  is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jeffrey Allen Rowe
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
All Electronically Registered Counsel
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
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?