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