Paige (ID 108422) v. Martell et al
Filing
27
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 25 is denied. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 09/19/17. Mailed to pro se party Michael P. Paige by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MICHAEL P. PAIGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO.17-3056-SAC-DJW
(fnu) MARTELL, et al.,
Defendants.
O R D E R
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #25) filed on September 2, 2107.
Plaintiff is requesting an injunction that requires Defendants
to immediately begin treating his chronic Hepatitis-C and to
perform
an
ultrasound
on
Plaintiff’s
liver
to
determine
the
extent of any damage.
To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must
demonstrate (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a
likelihood that the movant will suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities
tips in the movant’s favor, and (4) that the injunction is in
1
the public interest.
Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1251 (10th
Cir. 2010).
A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that
may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is
entitled to such relief.”
Inc.,
555
U.S.
7,
22
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
(2008).
A
preliminary
injunction
is
appropriate only when the movant's right to relief is clear and
unequivocal.
Schrier v. Univ. of Colo., 427 F.3d 1253, 1258
(10th Cir. 2005).
Moreover, a federal court considering a motion
for preliminary injunctive relief affecting the conditions of a
prisoner's
to
any
adverse impact on public safety” and on prison operation.
18
U.S.C.
confinement
§
3626(a)(2).
must
give
“substantial
Finally,
a
weight
mandatory
preliminary
injunction, such as the one sought by Plaintiff, which requires
the non-moving party to take affirmative action, is disfavored
and therefore requires the moving party to make a heightened
showing of the four factors above.
Little, 607 F.3d at 1251.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to
make a heightened showing that entry of a preliminary injunction
is warranted; he has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on
the
merits
unequivocal.
such
that
his
right
to
relief
is
clear
and
The Court has ordered a Martinez report, which has
not yet been filed.
At this point in the proceedings, the Court
has not made the determination of whether or not Plaintiff’s
2
claim survives the initial screening required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915.
For this reason, Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief
is denied at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. #25) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
This 19th day of September, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow______
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge
3
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?