United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
William T. Lawrence, Judge
plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction, the defendants' response thereto,
and the plaintiff's reply have been considered.
plaintiff, Lee McDaniel Parker, alleges that the defendants
are denying him treatment for his serious medical care. He
alleges that his blood sugar is not being properly monitored,
which could lead to blindness. He further alleges that during
the past few weeks, following his insulin injections, he has
experienced a burning sensation throughout his body. His
blood sugar count has been out of control for the past few
weeks, remaining in the area of 300 to 400, even after
receiving an injection and without having eaten any food. He
alleges that he was hospitalized from September 11, through
September 13, 2016, because of his high blood sugar. It is
his belief that medical personnel are injecting a foreign
substance into his body when he receives his daily insulin
injections. Specifically, he asks the Court to order the
defendants to provide him with his own individual vials of
insulin and the equipment required to properly monitor his
blood sugar count.
succeed in obtaining preliminary injunctive relief, the
plaintiff must establish that he is likely to succeed on the
merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm if
preliminary relief is not granted, that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and that it is in the public
interest to issue an injunction. United States v. NCR
Corp., 688 F.3d 833, 837 (7th Cir. 2012). A preliminary
injunction is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one
that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear
showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek
v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). The movant bears
the burden of proving his entitlement to such relief.
Cooper v. Salazar, 196 F.3d 809, 813 (7th Cir.
relevant underlying claim in this action is whether the
defendants have been deliberately indifferent to Mr.
Parker's diabetes and eye condition. To prevail on an
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference medical claim, a
plaintiff must demonstrate two elements: (1) he suffered from
an objectively serious medical condition; and (2) the
defendant knew about the plaintiff's condition and the
substantial risk of harm it posed, but disregarded that risk.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 8374 (1994);
Pittman ex rel. Hamilton v. County of Madison, Ill.,
746 F.3d 766, 775 (7th Cir. 2014); Arnett v.
Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 750-51 (7th Cir. 2011). “A
medical condition is objectively serious if a physician has
diagnosed it as requiring treatment, or the need for
treatment would be obvious to a layperson.” Pyles
v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 409 (7th Cir. 2014).
defendants have responded by discussing the medical care that
Mr. Parker has received during the past five months at the
United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute. The defendants
have investigated Mr. Parker's fears that someone is
tampering with his insulin and found nothing to substantiate
those claims. In response to Mr. Parker's complaints of
burning sensations, medical personnel have requested new
vials of insulin from the pharmacy. On September 25, 2016,
the nurse on duty pulled a brand new vial of insulin from the
refrigerator, opened the box in front of Mr. Parker, and
administered the ordered insulin as directed. The defendants
have taken Mr. Parker's concerns seriously but have found
that no saline or other foreign substance is being injected
with his insulin.
regard to Mr. Parker's request to have insulin and
syringes in his cell, the defendants have raised serious
safety and security concerns which would prevent that from
being allowed. Syringes could be used as weapons. Other
inmates could use the insulin to harm Mr. Parker or others.
Mr. Parker already has a personal glucometer and testing
supplies which he uses to check his blood glucose throughout
the day. It is in Mr. Parker's best interest to have him
receive his insulin from medical staff who can monitor his
blood glucose and make sure that he is receiving the
appropriate dose each time.
light of the above circumstances, Mr. Parker has not shown
that he is likely to succeed on the merits with regard to his
claim that a foreign substance is being injected into his
body. Moreover, it is not in the public interest, or his own
interest, to allow him to have access to his own insulin and
syringes in his cell. Indeed, it appears that Mr. Parker
would be more likely to suffer irreparable harm if his
request for preliminary injunctive relief were granted, not
if his request is denied. The balance of equities does not
tip in his favor when considering the relief he seeks.
these reasons, the plaintiffs motion for temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction [dkt. 48] is