United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
BRODERICK V. BULLOCK, SR., Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
V. Bullock, Sr., a prisoner without a lawyer, has filed two
motions requesting immediate injunctive relief. ECF 23, 25.
“[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
is proceeding only on a claim for injunctive relief against
Warden Hyatte in his official capacity related to injuries he
sustained on February 2, 2019, after he was attacked by a
fellow inmate at the Miami Correctional Facility. ECF 4. His
motions request punitive damages in the sum of $1, 000, 000
against Warden Hyatte and unnamed “officials” for
being deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. ECF 23
at 2; 25 at 1-2. However, as noted in the court's
previous order (ECF 17) denying his first motion for a
preliminary injunction, 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.
And, this case does not currently include a claim for any
monetary damages. Therefore, the requests for immediate
injunctive relief for one million dollars must be denied.
also requests immediate medical treatment related to his
various injuries. 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
[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
Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697-98 (7th Cir.
2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
states that prison officials have done “nothing”
to address his elbow fracture, burns, and ear injury. ECF 25
at 2. However, the record belies that assertion. The court
summarized the medical care Bullock has received since the
incident for his elbow fracture and burns in its previous
order. See ECF 17 at 4-5. Bullock's current
motion provides no information that would change the
court's analysis or demonstrate that he is not receiving
medical treatment for those injuries that reflects
professional judgment, practice, or standards. As to his ear,
Bullock attaches a photograph of a bloody ear lobe (ECF 25 at
4), but he does not indicate when the photograph was taken.
The record shows that when Bullock was examined by a nurse on
the day of the attack, she documented a “0.5 cm cut to
outer left ear edges, ” noted that cream was applied to
it, and prescribed pain medication. ECF 13-3 at 1-2. The
subsequent treatment notes of Bullock's examining
physician do not reflect that Bullock had any further
complaints related to his ear. Bullock provides no
information to suggest that the nature of his ear injury is
recent, severe, or requires immediate medical attention.
Based on this record, he has not made a clear showing that
the care he is currently receiving for his elbow, burns, and
ear violates the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the requests
for immediate injunctive related to these injuries will be
also complains that he is not receiving adequate care for his
eye injury. It is undisputed that, since the attack occurred
on February 2, 2019, Bullock's eye has been examined and
treated by multiple medical professionals including an
optometrist and an outside ophthalmologist. See ECF
17 at 3-4 (summarizing the medical record). However, Bullock
now alleges that prison officials are failing to follow the
recommendations of those specialists and are withholding
medication in the form of “serum tears” that were
prescribed by Dr. Stephen M. Johnson from the Midwest Eye
Institute on March 25, 2019. ECF 23 at 1; 25 at 2; see
also ECF 22-1. Bullock cites to orders for
“urgent” lab work and a prescription for serum
tears (1 drop, 6 times a day, for 1 year). ECF 23 at 1; 22-1
at 1, 5. Because there is a question as to whether necessary
medication or care for Bullock's eye is being withheld,
the Warden will be required to respond to that allegation.
these reasons, the court:
(1) DENIES the motions (ECF 23, 25) to the extent Broderick
V. Bullock, Sr., requests immediate injunctive relief in the
form of $1, 000, 000 and/or immediate additional medical care
for his elbow, burns, and ear;
(2) ORDERS Warden Sevier to file a response to the motions
(ECF 23, 25), including affidavits and/or medical evidence if
necessary, by June 12, 2019, only
to the extent Broderick V. Bullock Sr., alleges that
medication or treatment ...