Robinson v. City of St. Louis Division of Corrections et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Hosea Lee Robinson's "Order of Protection and or Motion for Restraining Order and Release of Custody and Care From Corizon Health Care Services and St. Louis Justice Center" 12 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 12/2/16. (CAR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
HOSEA LEE ROBINSON,
CITY OF ST. LOUIS DIVISION OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
No. 4:16-cv-1535 RWS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff Hosea Lee Robinson titled
“Order of Protection and or Motion for Restraining Order and Release of Custody and Care
From Corizon Health Care Services and St. Louis Justice Center.” (Docket No. 12).
Plaintiff commenced this civil action on September 28, 2016, naming as defendants the
City of St. Louis Division of Corrections, Corizon Health Services, St. Louis Justice Center, and
Sheila Williamson, a medical supervisor. In the “statement of claim” portion of the complaint,
plaintiff alleged that, from February 2016 to September 26, 2016, he requested but did not
receive medical care for his chronic medical and dental needs.
Plaintiff also alleged that
grievances he filed were not properly addressed. For his claim for relief, plaintiff asked the
Court to send him to his private medical care providers for treatment, and award him
$1,500,000.00 in monetary damages. Upon review, the Court noted that the complaint failed to
state a claim against Ms. Williamson and was frivolous as to all other defendants, and directed
plaintiff to file an amended complaint by November 3, 2016. Plaintiff sought and received an
extension of time, to November 25, 2016, to do so. On November 28, 2016, plaintiff filed the
instant motion, but has yet to file an amended complaint.
In the instant motion, plaintiff states that he has experienced chest pain; has been seen by
a Dr. Fuentes instead of by a cardiologist; has been given the wrong medications; and has not
received proper dental care. Plaintiff does not specifically state the relief he seeks, but based
upon the wording of the title and the nature of plaintiff’s statements, it appears he is seeking
preliminary injunctive relief.
Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the issuance of injunctions
and restraining orders. Pursuant thereto, the Court must look to the specific facts shown by
affidavit(s) to determine whether immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to
the applicant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). In considering whether to grant preliminary injunctive
relief, the Court must consider the following factors: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the
movant; (2) the state of the balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction
will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits;
and (4) the public interest. See Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. CL Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th
Cir. 1981). In the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with
great caution because “judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and
intractable problems of prison administration.” Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520-21 (8th Cir.
1995) (citing Rogers v. Scurr, 676 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982)). For an injunction to issue
“a right must be violated,” and the court must determine whether “a cognizable danger of future
violation exists and that danger must be more than a mere possibility.” Id. Regarding the issue
of when a situation is ripe for injunctive relief, the Eighth Circuit has noted that courts “should
not get involved unless either a constitutional violation has already occurred or the threat of such
a violation is both real and immediate.” Id.
Having considered plaintiff’s motion in light of the Dataphase factors and the Eighth
Circuit’s guidance, the Court concludes that plaintiff is not entitled to preliminary injunctive
relief. Plaintiff has failed to provide any supporting exhibits or medical evidence to show that he
actually suffers from the conditions at issue. In addition, he does not allege that he is receiving
no medical treatment at all; just that he disagrees with the institution’s medical treatment
providers regarding what is necessary and proper for his medical care. It therefore does not
appear that this is a situation involving threat of irreparable harm.
In addition, plaintiff’s
disagreement with the medical treatment he is receiving, or his apparent belief that he would
receive better treatment elsewhere, is insufficient to establish a deliberate indifference claim.
Popoalii v. Correctional Medical Services, 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Estate of
Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995)) (“[M]ere disagreement with treatment
decisions does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation”); see also Seward v. Hutto, 525
F.2d 1024 (8th Cir. 1975) (decisions regarding the necessary and proper medical treatment of
inmates, absent an allegation of intentional neglect or mistreatment, should be left to the
judgment of the institution’s medical personnel). Thus, on the basis of the present record,
plaintiff cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Also, the Court is hesitant at
this stage of litigation to interfere in the complex and intractable problems associated with prison
administration. Finally, the Court determines that granting plaintiff’s motion would not serve the
public’s strong interest in the safe, efficient and orderly operation of its prison system.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Hosea Lee Robinson’s “Order of Protection
and or Motion for Restraining Order and Release of Custody and Care From Corizon Health
Care Services and St. Louis Justice Center” (Docket No. 12) is DENIED.
Dated this 2nd day of December, 2016.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?