YURATOVICH v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al

Filing 69

MEMORANDUM ORDER that within 10 days of the date of this Order, Defendants must file a letter updating the Court as to the status of Plaintiff's surgery. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 6/1/2017. (tf, n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, et al.,:
:
Defendants.
:
______________________________:
JAMES P. YURATOVICH,

Civ. No. 13-5651 (NLH)
MEMORANDUM ORDER

APPEARANCES:
James P. Yuratovich
70237056
FCI Fort Dix
P.O. Box 2000
Fort Dix, NJ 08640
Plaintiff Pro se
John Andrew Ruymann
Office of the U.S. Attorney
402 East State Street
Suite 430
Trenton, NJ 08608
Counsel for Defendants

HILLMAN, District Judge
IT APPEARING THAT:
1.

Plaintiff James Yuratovich (“Plaintiff”), an inmate

currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Fort Dix, New Jersey, filed this civil action alleging an Eighth
Amendment claim pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), based on

the denial of medical treatment for neurological issues
affecting his arms, legs and spine since 2011.
2.

(ECF No. 1.)

After conducting its initial screening, the Court

permitted Plaintiff’s Complaint to proceed. (ECF No. 9.)
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 24), which the
Court denied in December 2015 (ECF Nos. 27, 28).

In September

2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, to which
Defendants consented.
3.

(ECF Nos. 49, 55.)

On November 14, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to

Dismiss the Amended Complaint.

(ECF No. 57.)

Plaintiff did not

oppose the Motion, but instead filed a Motion for Leave to File
a Second Amended Complaint.

(ECF No. 64.) Defendants opposed

Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 65) and Plaintiff filed a Reply (ECF
No. 66).
4.

In his proposed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff

alleges that since November 2011, Defendants Hollingsworth,
Hachinski, Ortiz, Sood, Turner-Foster and Naphcare have denied
him proper medical treatment for the constant pain in his wrist,
hand, and fingers along with motor function in right wrist and
fingers; loss of motor function of right ankle, foot and toes;
and diminishing sensory functions in right and left foot as well
as both hands and right extremities.

On October 27, 2016,

Plaintiff alleges that he was examined by Dr. Hanft, a
neurosurgeon at Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center, who
2

recommended spinal cord surgery within two months because of the
urgency of his situation.

However, due to delays by Defendants,

he has not been provided this recommended surgery.
Plaintiff is seeking only injunctive relief, specifically,
that he be evaluated by a neurosurgeon at a university based
medical center and any and all recommended surgeries.
5.

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s

request to amend the complaint should be denied as futile
because: (1) he failed to exhaust the Bureau of Prisons’
administrative remedies; (2) the proposed complaint does not
state a constitutional violation; (3) the proposed pleading
fails to state a claim for injunctive relief; and (4) his
request to be seen by a neurosurgeon at a university-based
medical center is moot and no longer presents a live
controversy.
6.

On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

Preliminary Injunction requesting that Defendants bring
Plaintiff to a qualified university-based neurosurgeon for his
corrective surgery.
7.

(ECF No. 67.)

In response, Defendants submitted Opposition, which

included a declaration from Kevin Cassano, an Assistant Health
Services Administrator with the Bureau of Prisons.
68.)

(ECF No.

Mr. Cassano’s declaration, dated May 22, 2017, states that

3

Plaintiff was scheduled for surgery with a university-based
neurosurgeon within the next seven days.
8.

(Id.)

Because Plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief, which

would appear to be moot if he receives the surgery he has
requested, see, e.g., Williamson v. Correctional Medical
Services, Inc., No. 07–4425, 304 F. App’x 36, 38 (3d Cir. 2008)
(claim for order compelling knee surgery and dental care);
Orozco-Barajas v. Zickefoose, No. 11-3628, 2013 WL 2096501, at
*8 (D.N.J. May 14, 2013) (claim for injunctive relief for
medical treatment moot when received), the Court will require
Defendants to provide the Court with an update as to Plaintiff’s
status.
Therefore,
IT IS on this

1st

day of

June

, 2017,

ORDERED that within 10 days of the date of this Order,
Defendants must file a letter updating the Court as to the
status of Plaintiff’s surgery; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of
this Order upon Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

4