Staffa v. Pollard et al

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 5/31/2013 DENYING 9 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order/Permanent Injunction; DENYING 16 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order/Permanent Injunction. (cc: all counsel, via US mail to Mark Staffa at Waupun Correctional Institution)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MARK P. STAFFA,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No.

13-CV-5

WILLIAM POLLARD, DR. DAVID BURNETT,
DR. P. SUMNICHT, BELINDA SCHRUBBE,
and JAMES GREER,
Defendants.

ORDER

The plaintiff has filed two motions for temporary restraining order/injunction.
He requests immediate hospitalization in a hospital that can be held accountable to the court
and not allowed to withhold potentially life-threatening medical information. According to
the plaintiff, he is in danger because of a lack of adequate medical attention.
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate that he is reasonably
likely to succeed on the merits, that he is experiencing irreparable harm that exceeds any
harm his opponent will suffer if the injunction issues, that he lacks an adequate remedy at
law, and that the injunction would not harm the public interest. Christian Legal Soc’y v.
Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2006). “If the moving party meets this threshold burden,
the district court weighs the factors against one another in a sliding scale analysis . . . which
is to say the district court must exercise its discretion to determine whether the balance of

harms weighs in favor of the moving party or whether the nonmoving party or public interest
will be harmed sufficiently that the injunction should be denied. Id.; see Joelner v. Vill. of
Wash. Park, 378 F.3d 613, 619 (7th Cir. 2004).
The plaintiff is proceeding on an Eighth Amendment medical care claim based
on exposure to communicable diseases at Waupun Correctional Institution, and the
defendants’ alleged failure to inform him of and treat him for the diseases. However, the
plaintiff has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover,
his motions describe ongoing medical care he is receiving. Thus, the court will not grant his
requests for injunctive relief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for temporary
restraining order/injunction (Docket #9) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for temporary
restraining order/injunction (Docket # 16) is denied.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 31st day of May, 2013.
SO ORDERED,

HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U. S. District Judge

2