United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
JEB
ADAM CRANDALL, BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL ATTORNEYS
ENTRY DISCUSSING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION
Hon.
William T. Lawrence, United States District Court Judge
Plaintiff
Joshua Jackson has moved for a preliminary injunction. He
asserts that he has not been provided with physical therapy
to alleviate his prostatitis.
Standard
for Injunctive Relief
A
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy
that is available only when the movant shows clear need.
Goodman v. Ill. Dep't of Fin. and Prof'l
Regulation, 430 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2005). A party
seeking a preliminary injunction must show (1) that its case
has “some likelihood of success on the merits, ”
and (2) that it has “no adequate remedy at law and will
suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is
denied.” Ezell v. City of Chi., 651 F.3d 684,
694 (7th Cir. 2011). If the moving party meets these
threshold requirements, the district court “weighs the
factors against one another, assessing whether the balance of
harms favors the moving party or whether the harm to the
nonmoving party or the public is sufficiently weighty that
the injunction should be denied.” Id. The
district court's weighing of the facts is not
mathematical in nature; rather, it is “more properly
characterized as subjective and intuitive, one which permits
district courts to weigh the competing considerations and
mold appropriate relief.” Ty, Inc. v. Jones Group,
Inc., 237 F.3d 891, 895-96 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting
Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6,
12 (7th Cir. 1992)).
Discussion
Jackson's
claims are that the defendants have been deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. 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. Id. at
837; Pittman ex rel. Hamilton v. County of Madison,
Ill., 746 F.3d 766, 775 (7th Cir. 2014).
“[C]onduct
is ‘deliberately indifferent' when the official has
acted in an intentional or criminally reckless manner,
i.e., “the defendant must have known that the
plaintiff ‘was at serious risk of being harmed [and]
decided not to do anything to prevent that harm from
occurring even though he could have easily done
so.'” Board v. Freeman, 394 F.3d 469, 478
(7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Armstrong v. Squadrito, 152
F.3d 564, 577 (7th Cir. 1998)). “To infer deliberate
indifference on the basis of a physician's treatment
decision, the decision must be so far afield of accepted
professional standards as to raise the inference that it was
not actually based on a medical judgment.” Norfleet
v. Webster, 439 F.3d 392, 396 (7th Cir. 2006). See
Plummer v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 609 Fed.Appx.
861, 2015 WL 4461297, *2 (7th Cir. 2015) (holding that
defendant doctors were not deliberately indifferent because
there was “no evidence suggesting that the defendants
failed to exercise medical judgment or responded
inappropriately to [the plaintiff's] ailments”).
First,
because he has been transferred to a different facility and
the individual defendants in this case are no longer
responsible for his care, Jackson cannot obtain injunctive
relief against them.[1] In addition, Jackson states broadly that
he requires physical therapy for his urinary tract issues,
but he has yet to present evidence that the defendants have
failed to exercise their medical judgment in treating him.
Jackson has therefore failed to show that he has a reasonable
likelihood of success on the merits of his claims. In
addition, defendant Wexford has provided evidence that
Jackson is receiving evaluation and treatment for his medical
conditions and there is no evidence of any significant
problem. Jackson therefore has not shown that he will suffer
irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted.
Conclusion
By
failing to meet these threshold requirements, Jackson has
failed to show his entitlement to injunctive relief. His
motion for a preliminary injunction, Dkt. No. 71, is
denied.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
---------