SANCHEZ v. COLEMAN et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 25 Motion for TRO; denying 25 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 10/23/2013. (bsc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSE SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN COLEMAN., et al.,
Defendants.

)
Civil Action No. 2: 13-cv-00982
)
)
United States Magistrate Judge
)
Cynthia Reed Eddy
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 25) and the Commonwealth Defendants’ Response in
Opposition (ECF No. 24). After consideration of the written submissions, and for the reasons
that follow, the motion is denied.
Plaintiff, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Fayette (“SCI-Fayette”),
brings this lawsuit pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his Eighth
Amendment rights. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent
to his medical needs by failing to provide necessary medical care.
In the instant motion, Plaintiff alleges that on September 27, 2013, after he had filed this
lawsuit, he went to the SCI-Fayette medical department complaining of problems with his
stomach. He claims, inter alia, that he “was not provided with any medication for [his] medical
problem which [he] complaint about on the 27th.” Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) and/or preliminary injunction to prohibit Defendants and their
employees and agents “from harassing [him], annoying him, refusing to provide medical
treatment to him or retaliating against him and thus punishing him in any kind of way during the
conduct of this instant lawsuit or for filing same . . . .” Mot. at 1.
1

Injunctive relief is an “extraordinary remedy, which should be granted only in limited
circumstances.” Novartis Consumer Health v. Johnson & Johnson–Merck Consumer Pharms.
Co., 290 F.3d 578, 586 (3d Cir. 2002) (quotation and citation omitted). The Court must consider
four (4) factors in determining whether to grant Plaintiff’s motion for TRO: (1) the likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will be irreparable harmed without the restraint;
(3) whether the party to be enjoined will be irreparably injured if the preliminary relief is
granted; and (4) whether the public interest will be served by the preliminary relief. Maldonado
v. Houston, 157 F.3d 179, 184 (3d Cir. 1998) A plaintiff must establish that all four factors favor
preliminary relief. Opticians Ass'n of America v. Independent Opticians of America, 920 F.2d
187, 191-92 (3d Cir.1990). Applying these four factors to this matter, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff has failed to make the required showing to justify the extraordinary remedy of
injunctive relief.
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the public interest is best served if the courts
do not get involved in the daily operations of a prison, particularly prior to a finding that the
Constitution has been violated. Defendants have provided the declaration of Susan Berrier, the
Corrections Health Care Administrator (“CHCA”) at SCI-Fayette. CHCA Berrier confirms that
Plaintiff was seen by the SCI-Fayette Medical Department on September 27, 2013, with
complaints of stomach pain. His physical examination was unremarkable and Physician’s
Assistant (“PA”) Darla Cowden ordered blood work and a stool culture. Further, according to
the Declaration, PA Cowden called the block on which Plaintiff resides and was informed that
Plaintiff had no activity change and was going to the yard and working out.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish that he will be irreparably
harmed if his motion for injunctive relief is denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff has failed to

2

establish that he has been harmed in any way by any of the actions complained of in his motion.
Moreover, Plaintiff has not made a clear showing that he will likely prevail on the merits. The
record before this Court is clear that Plaintiff was not denied medical care on September 27,
2013.
AND NOW, this 23rd day of October, 2013, based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction (ECF No. 25) is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge
cc:

JOSE SANCHEZ
GR2847
PO Box 9999
LaBelle, PA 15450
Robert A. Willig
Office of Attorney General
Email: [e-mail]

3