McDonald v. Cain et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying 55 Motion for Injunction. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 2/21/2012. (CMM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RANDY McDONALD (#452858)
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 09-850-BAJ-CN
BURL CAIN, WARDEN, ET AL.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction (doc. 55).
The pro se plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary
(“LSP”), Angola, Louisiana, filed this proceeding pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Warden Burl Cain, Secretary James M. LeBlanc, and the Louisiana State
Fire Marshall Inspector, complaining that his constitutional rights have been violated
by the conditions of confinement to which he has been subjected at that facility,
notably through over-crowding and through double-bunking in the handicapped
dormitory, resulting in a greater risk of harm to him and to other inmates.
In the instant motion for injunctive relief, the plaintiff asserts that he has been
diagnosed with hepatitis, but prison officials have failed to adequately treat him for
this condition for a number of years. The reason allegedly given for such nontreatment has been that the plaintiff also suffers with “roomatism arthritis”, and that
treatment for the former condition would subject him to negative side-effects in light
of the latter condition. Notwithstanding, the plaintiff asserts that in January, 2012,
a blood test conducted by an independent facility indicated that he does not have
“roomatism arthritis.” He therefore complains that the defendants are guilty of
“medical neglect” and “malpractice” in their diagnosis and treatment of his medical

condition. Finally, the plaintiff complains that the defendants have failed to provide
him with a complete copy of his medical records and with the written results of the
blood test conducted in January, 2012.
The Court finds that the plaintiff’s motion is lacking in sufficient factual detail
and sufficient allegations of actual or irreparable harm or injury as would support a
finding that injunctive relief should be granted. Specifically, there is insufficient
information provided which would allow the Court to evaluate the seriousness of the
plaintiff’s medical condition or the likelihood of any injury or harm which may result
from the alleged failure to provide him with the medication or care which he desires.
It appears, therefore, that the plaintiff’s claims are susceptible of being adequately
addressed in this or a separate proceeding and that his request for injunctive relief
should be denied. Specifically, the plaintiff has failed to establish, with any degree
of certainty, any of the four elements warranting such relief at the present time: (1)
a likelihood of irreparable injury, (2) an absence of harm to the defendants if
injunctive relief is granted, (3) an interest consistent with the public good, and (4) a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Canal Authority v. Callaway, 489
F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1974).
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction (doc. 55) is hereby DENIED.
Baton Rouge, February 21, 2012.

BRIAN A. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA