Redding v. United States Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 81

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relieve 65 is Denied. Signed on 6/13/11 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER REDDING, )
Civil No. lO-998-PK

)

Plaintiff,

)
)

v.

)
)

DR. J. DHALIWA, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

)
)

Defendants.

)

HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff

ha~ filed his

third Motion

[65]

for

injunctive

relief in this civil rights action seeking an Order from this court
directing the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP")

to provide him with back

surgery or to move him to a medical facility more suitable to
handling serious cases like his.

Plaintiff contends this latest

motion is based on newly discovered evidence.

Namely, a response

from the prison appeals administrator advising plaintiff that his
scheduled surgery "has been delayed as [plaintiff] initiated legal
1 - ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

action against FCI Sheridan, and the consultant neurosurgeon that
was

to

perform

the

surgery

declined

to

do

so";

plaintiff's

representation that a prison physician's assistant informed him
"that

there is not another doctor in Oregon that will do the

surgery and because
B.O.P.

of

[plaintiff's]

legal

action against

the

[he] can also forget getting aspirin from the medical staff

here at F.C.I. Sheridan; and plaintiff's contention that the BOP is
now waffling on the type of treatment he should receive.
Notably, plaintiff does not allege that the neurosurgeon who
was previously scheduled to perform his surgery is under the BOP'S
control or that he conspired with defendants to deny plaintiff
needed medical care because of this pending litigation.

Moreover,

plaintiff's allegations suggesting the prison medical staff will
refuse him any future pain medication and that prior approval of
his back surgery is now in jeopardy, are refuted by defendants'
recently filed Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment.
Specifically,
plaintiff

has

defendants contend that since coming to Sheridan
received

extensive

medications

including

pain

medications, though he has been weaned off addictive narcotics, in
part

to

make

him

a

better surgical

candidate.

In addition,

defendants indicate that despite the fact that two neurosurgeons
have declined to perform surgery on plaintiff,

"medical staff at

FCI Sheridan are continuing their efforts to find a neurosurgeon

2 - ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

who will perform the surgery plaintiff is seeking.

Memorandum in

Support [67), pp. 4-5.
As the court has previously advised plaintiff, ordinarily, a
preliminary injunction maintains the status quo pending a final
decision on the merits.
390, 395 (1981).

University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S.

Plaintiff is asking the court to alter the status

quo by granting him,

before trial,

obtain through this action.

the very relief he hopes to

such a "mandatory injunction," as it

is known, is granted only in extraordinary circumstances.

See LGS

Architects, Inc. V. Concordia Homes of Nevada, 434 F.3d 1150, 1158
(9th Cir. 2006).

Plaintiff's "new evidence" notwithstanding, he

has failed to show that the present case rises to that level and
his motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
CONCLUSION
Based on the
Injunctive Relief

foregoing,
[65)

plaintiff I s

Motion for Preliminary

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

day of June, 2011.

) '

Ma co A. ffernandez
United States District Judge

3 - ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION