Hall v. Medical Department et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying 6 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Senior Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 1/2/2025. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party/Parties via US Mail)(aab)

$-&3,h4
0''*$&
64
%*45
$0635

"5
30"/0,&
7"
'*-&%
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
January 03, 2025
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA -"63"
"
"645*/
$-&3,

ROANOKE DIVISION

#:

s/A. Beeson

%&165:
$-&3,

JOSPEH NATHAN HALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:24-cv-00334
By: Michael F. Urbanski
Senior United States District Judge

ORDER
Joseph Nathan Hall, a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that he has received inadequate mental health treatment while incarcerated at the
Southwest Virginia Regional Jail. The case is presently before the court on Hall’s motion for a
preliminary injunction, ECF No. 6, in which he seeks to be prescribed a different mental health
medication. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a
clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Defense Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is
likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the
public interest.” Id. at 20. The Supreme Court has “made clear that each of these four factors
must be satisfied to obtain preliminary injunctive relief” and that it is “unnecessary to address all
four factors when one or more ha[s] not been satisfied.” Henderson v. Bluefield Hosp. Co., LLC,
902 F.3d 432, 439 (4th Cir. 2018) (emphasis in original) (citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 20, 23).
Applying these principles, the court concludes that Hall’s motion must be denied. Among
other deficiencies, Hall has not made a “clear showing” that he is likely to succeed on the merits

of his claim that the defendants have failed to adequately treat his mental health issues. Winter,
555 U.S. at 22. In the pending motion, Hall alleges that he has been prescribed Suboxone and
Effexor while incarcerated at the jail, and that taking Effexor has caused him to experience “cold
sweats and nightmares.” ECF No. 6 at 1. He believes that Effexor is the “wrong psych medicine”
for him, and he wants to receive the “proper medication.” Id. at 2. To the extent that Hall
disagrees with the treatment decisions made by medical staff at the jail, such disagreements
generally “fall short of showing deliberate indifference,” as required to establish a constitutional
claim of inadequate medical treatment. Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014).
Likewise, merely negligent treatment is not actionable under § 1983, and “many acts or omissions
that would constitute medical malpractice will not rise to the level of deliberate indifference.” Id.
Because Hall has not clearly shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his constitutional
claim under § 1983, he is not entitled to the requested preliminary injunctive relief.
For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Hall’s motion for a preliminary
injunction, ECF No. 6, is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to Hall.
It is so ORDERED.
Entered: January 2, 2025
Mike Urbanski
Senior U.S. District Judge
2025.01.02 19:43:32
-05'00'

Michael F. Urbanski
Senior United States District Judge

2