United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
BRODERICK V. BULLOCK, SR., Plaintiff,
v.
HYATTE, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
JON E.
DEGUILIO JUDGE
Broderick
V. Bullock, Sr., a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a motion
entitled “Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief in the
Sum of $1, 000, 000 Dollars” in which he seeks monetary
damages from four people. ECF 16. He is also asking for
immediate medical treatment. However, Bullock is proceeding
in this case against only one defendant. The only claim on
which Bullock was granted leave to proceed was against Warden
Hyatte in his official capacity for injunctive relief for
medical care to treat injuries sustained during an attack by
a fellow inmate on February 2, 2019. ECF 4.
“[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) (emphasis in original). To obtain a
preliminary injunction, the moving party must show (1) he
will suffer irreparable harm before the final resolution of
his claims; (2) available remedies at law are inadequate; and
(3) he has a likelihood of success on the merits. See
BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola, 809 F.3d 317, 323-24 (7th
Cir. 2015).
Here,
Bullock will not suffer irreparable harm if he is not
immediately paid one million dollars. Neither has he
demonstrated that legal remedies are inadequate if he is not
immediately paid one million dollars. Finally, he has no
likelihood of success on the merits because three of the four
people from whom he wants one million dollars are not
defendants in this case. The fourth person is a defendant,
but this case does not include a claim for monetary damages.
Therefore, the request for immediate injunctive relief for
one million dollars must be denied.
Bullock
also asks for three specific types of immediate medical
treatment. However, an injunction ordering the defendant to
take an affirmative act rather than merely refrain from
specific conduct is “cautiously viewed and sparingly
issued.” Graham v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 130 F.3d
293, 295 (7th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks and citation
omitted). Additionally,
“[t]he PLRA circumscribes the scope of the court's
authority to enter an injunction in the corrections context.
Where prison conditions are found to violate federal rights,
remedial injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no
further than necessary to correct the violation of the
Federal right, and use the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of the Federal right. This section of
the PLRA enforces a point repeatedly made by the Supreme
Court in cases challenging prison conditions: Prison
officials have broad administrative and discretionary
authority over the institutions they manage.”
Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2012)
(quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).
Therefore,
before Bullock can obtain injunctive relief, he must make a
clear showing that the medical care he is receiving violates
the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishment. See Id. and Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520
U.S. 968, 972 (1997). Bullock, like every inmate, is entitled
to receive adequate medical care. Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). However, “the Constitution
is not a medical code that mandates specific medical
treatment.” Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586,
592 (7th Cir. 1996). Inmates are “not entitled to
demand specific care [nor] entitled to the best care
possible.” Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 267
(7th Cir. 1997). Indeed,
medical professionals are not required to provide proper
medical treatment to prisoners, but rather they must provide
medical treatment that reflects professional judgment,
practice, or standards. There is not one proper way to
practice medicine in a prison, but rather a range of
acceptable courses based on prevailing standards in the
field. A medical professional's treatment decisions will
be accorded deference unless no minimally competent
professional would have so responded under those
circumstances.
Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697-98 (7th Cir.
2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Bullock
is asking to be taken to “Dr. Price, Dr. Fang, Dr.
Dietch, or Dr. Johnson for thermal keratopathy with stem-cell
deficiency.” ECF 16 at 1. However, his eyes were
examined last week by an outside ophthalmologist: Dr. Robert
B. Dinn, M.D. ECF 16-1. Dr. Dinn indicated that both eyes
were internally stable. ECF 16-1 at 3. He prescribed three
medications - one for three weeks. ECF 16-1 at 4-5. He also
recommended Bullock return to see him at an unspecified time
if he does not see another doctor to discuss “a
possible stem cell transplant.” ECF 16-1 at 3
(emphasis added). Bullock acknowledges visiting Dr. Dinn and
he attached the medical report from that visit to his motion.
ECF 16 and 16-1. Bullock does not deny receiving his
medications and the three week treatment has not yet
finished. Moreover, even if he were not in prison, it would
not be surprising for him to have not yet seen another doctor
since his visit with Dr. Dinn. Based on this record, Bullock
has not demonstrated he is not currently receiving medical
treatment for his eye that reflects professional judgment,
practice, or standards.
Bullock
also wants to be taken to a hospital for elbow surgery. ECF
16 at 2. He explains his elbow was x-rayed on February 5,
2019, but he was not told the results until they were sent to
him as a result of this lawsuit. Id. Dr. Marandet
examined Bullock on February 5, 2019, and concluded there was
“no indication for hospital admission at this
time.” ECF 13-3 at 7. The x-ray report from Meridian
Radiology states Bullock's left elbow has a
“moderate sized olecranon enthesophyte, which appears
fractured with minimal displacement and overlying soft tissue
swelling.” ECF 13-3 at 17. An olecranon fracture is a
“break in the bony ‘tip' of the elbow [and
t]reatment for an olecranon fracture depends upon the
severity of the injury.” See American Academy
of Orthopedic Surgeons website at
https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/diseases--conditions/elbow-olecranon-fractures
(last visited on March 12, 2019). Based on this record,
Bullock has not demonstrated he needs surgery. Neither has he
demonstrated he is not currently receiving medical treatment
for his elbow that reflects professional judgment, practice,
or standards.
Finally,
Bullock asks for “immediate outside treatment”
for his burns. ECF 16 at 2. Bullock received 1st
and 2nd degree burns on February 2, 2019. ECF 13-1
at 2. He was examined by a nurse and provided with bandages,
creme, and pain medication. Id. On February 4, 2019,
he was examined by a physician who prescribed additional pain
medication. ECF 13-3 at 6. Bullock was examined again the
next day by the same physician who noted his dressings had
been changed and his burns looked “good with no sign of
infection.” Id. The physician recommended
creme, but Bullock refused. Id. The physician
recommended Bullock be transferred to the infirmary for burn
care, but again Bullock refused and became belligerent.
Id. and ECF 13-3 at 19. On February 9, 2019, Bullock
twice refused to be seen or treated by a nurse who visited
his housing unit. ECF 13-3 at 9-10. On February 14, 2019, the
physician saw Bullock, but terminated the encounter early
because Bullock “became verbally abusive.” ECF
13-3 at 11. Based on ...