Brown v. Mohr et al
Filing
110
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 47 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 97 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Peter C. Economus on 2/25/2015. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
STEVEN S. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2: 13-cv-006
Judge Peter C. Economus
DIRECTOR MOHR, et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants.
This is a prisoner civil rights case. This matter is before the Court for consideration of
Plaintiff Mr. Brown’s Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 97.) Mr. Brown asks this Court to
reconsider its Order (ECF No. 87) denying Mr. Brown’s request for preliminary injunction. For
the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Mr. Brown’s Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No.
97.)
I.
Background
Mr. Brown, a prison inmate, brings this pro se civil rights action against numerous
Defendants. This case came before the Court by way of a transfer from the United States District
Court for Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. In the Western Division, Magistrate
Judge J. Gregory Wehrman issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) dismissing some of
Mr. Brown’s original claims, and transferring other claims to the United States District Court for
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. (ECF No. 12.)
Following the transfer, Mr. Brown filed a Second Amended Complaint in this Court.
(ECF No. 51.) In the Second Amended Complaint, Mr. Brown alleges the following: an Eighth
Amendment violation of his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the
deliberate indifference standard for denial of medical treatment; retaliation for having taken legal
action and this includes being placed in a cell with Nazi’s and skinheads because he is Jewish;
denial of adequate kosher food; and many other claims.
On March 5, 2014, Mr. Brown filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 47.)
In that Motion, Mr. Brown requested a preliminary injunction related to his claims against
Defendants. Primarily, Mr. Brown argued that he was denied adequate kosher food and denied
adequate medical care. (ECF No. 47 at 1.)
Magistrate Judge Terrence P. Kemp issued an R & R recommending that Mr. Brown’s
motion be denied. (ECF No. 53.) Mr. Brown filed an Objection to the R & R. (ECF No. 55.) This
Court issued an Order adopting the portion of the R & R that denied Mr. Brown’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 87.)
Mr. Brown then filed a Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 97) of this Court’s Order
(ECF No. 87).
II.
Discussion
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly address motions for
reconsideration of interlocutory orders, the authority for a district court to hear such motions is
found in both the common law and in Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 Fed. Appx’ 949, 959 (6th Cir.2004).
Traditionally, courts will find justification for reconsidering interlocutory orders when there is
(1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or, (3) a need to correct
a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Id. at 959 (citing Reich v. Hall Holding Co., 990 F.
Supp. 955, 965 (N. D. Ohio 1998)). In this case, Mr. Brown does not seek reconsideration on
either of the first two grounds. Mr. Brown relies only on the third prong, contending that this
Court made a clear error in denying preliminary injunction.
2
The Court has reviewed Mr. Brown’s Motion (ECF No. 97), and finds no basis for
reconsidering its Order (ECF No. 87). In his motion, Mr. Brown raises the same arguments he
previously made. Again, Mr. Brown argues that Defendants provided inadequate medical care in
violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mr. Brown, however, does
not argue and has not established that this Court committed clear error by denying his Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
Moreover, Mr. Brown’s Eighth Amendment Claim for inadequate medical care is
insufficient. To establish an Eighth Amendment violation premised on inadequate medical care,
Mr. Brown must demonstrate that the Defendants acted with “deliberate indifference to serious
medical needs.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 104 (1976)). To rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation, a prison official
must “know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both
be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious
harms exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837-38. “Furthermore, a
difference of opinion between a prisoner and a doctor over diagnosis or treatment also fails to
state an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.” Brock v.
Crall, 8 F. App’x 439, 440 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n.5 (6th
Cir. 1976)).
Mr. Brown does not meet this burden. Mr. Brown simply contends that he received no
medical treatment. (ECF No. 97.) To prove his claim, Mr. Brown provides medical records from
doctors he saw while incarcerated. These medical records, however, clearly establish that Mr.
Brown has received at least some medical treatment. Therefore, the Court denies Mr. Brown’s
3
Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 97) and his Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No.
47).
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court hereby DENIES Mr. Brown’s Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 97) and his Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 47).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
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?