PARKER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
ENTRY: For these reasons, the plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction [dkt. 48 ] is denied ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDIITONAL INFORMATION***. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 11/1/2016. (DW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
LEE MCDANIEL PARKER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Entry Discussing Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
The plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, the
defendants’ response thereto, and the plaintiff’s reply have been considered.
The plaintiff, Lee McDaniel Parker, alleges that the defendants are denying him treatment
for his serious medical care. He alleges that his blood sugar is not being properly monitored,
which could lead to blindness. He further alleges that during the past few weeks, following his
insulin injections, he has experienced a burning sensation throughout his body. His blood sugar
count has been out of control for the past few weeks, remaining in the area of 300 to 400, even
after receiving an injection and without having eaten any food. He alleges that he was
hospitalized from September 11, through September 13, 2016, because of his high blood sugar. It
is his belief that medical personnel are injecting a foreign substance into his body when he
receives his daily insulin injections. Specifically, he asks the Court to order the defendants to
provide him with his own individual vials of insulin and the equipment required to properly
monitor his blood sugar count.
To succeed in obtaining preliminary injunctive relief, the plaintiff must establish that he
is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm if preliminary relief
is not granted, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that it is in the public interest to
issue an injunction. United States v. NCR Corp., 688 F.3d 833, 837 (7th Cir. 2012). 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). The movant bears the burden of proving his entitlement to such relief.
Cooper v. Salazar, 196 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir. 1999).
The relevant underlying claim in this action is whether the defendants have been
deliberately indifferent to Mr. Parker’s diabetes and eye condition. To prevail on an Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference medical claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate two elements:
(1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition; and (2) the defendant knew about
the plaintiff’s condition and the substantial risk of harm it posed, but disregarded that risk.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 8374 (1994); Pittman ex rel. Hamilton v. County of Madison,
Ill., 746 F.3d 766, 775 (7th Cir. 2014); Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 750-51 (7th Cir. 2011).
“A medical condition is objectively serious if a physician has diagnosed it as requiring treatment,
or the need for treatment would be obvious to a layperson.” Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 409
(7th Cir. 2014).
The defendants have responded by discussing the medical care that Mr. Parker has
received during the past five months at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute. The
defendants have investigated Mr. Parker’s fears that someone is tampering with his insulin and
found nothing to substantiate those claims. In response to Mr. Parker’s complaints of burning
sensations, medical personnel have requested new vials of insulin from the pharmacy. On
September 25, 2016, the nurse on duty pulled a brand new vial of insulin from the refrigerator,
opened the box in front of Mr. Parker, and administered the ordered insulin as directed. The
defendants have taken Mr. Parker’s concerns seriously but have found that no saline or other
foreign substance is being injected with his insulin.
With regard to Mr. Parker’s request to have insulin and syringes in his cell, the
defendants have raised serious safety and security concerns which would prevent that from being
allowed. Syringes could be used as weapons. Other inmates could use the insulin to harm Mr.
Parker or others. Mr. Parker already has a personal glucometer and testing supplies which he
uses to check his blood glucose throughout the day. It is in Mr. Parker’s best interest to have him
receive his insulin from medical staff who can monitor his blood glucose and make sure that he
is receiving the appropriate dose each time.
In light of the above circumstances, Mr. Parker has not shown that he is likely to succeed
on the merits with regard to his claim that a foreign substance is being injected into his body.
Moreover, it is not in the public interest, or his own interest, to allow him to have access to his
own insulin and syringes in his cell. Indeed, it appears that Mr. Parker would be more likely to
suffer irreparable harm if his request for preliminary injunctive relief were granted, not if his
request is denied. The balance of equities does not tip in his favor when considering the relief he
For these reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction [dkt. 48] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
LEE MCDANIEL PARKER
TERRE HAUTE - USP
P.O. BOX 33
TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808
Electronically registered counsel
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?