United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION (DKT. NO. 64)
PAMELA PEPPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Keith Jackson, a Wisconsin state prisoner incarcerated at
Oshkosh Correctional Institution, is representing himself. He
is proceeding on an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
to a serious medical need claim, based on allegations that
the defendants delayed and failed to treat his soft tissue
disease symptoms over the course of about four-and-a-half
years (from February 27, 2012 until August 2016), resulting
in unnecessary pain and suffering. See Dkt. No. 40
at 3-5. The plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
injunction, dkt. no. 64, and on November 29, 2018, the court
directed the defendants to file a more detailed response to
that motion, dkt. no. 119 at 1.
defendants have filed that response. Dkt. No. 129. The court
will deny the plaintiff's motion for preliminary
court's November 29, 2018 order described the
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction:
The plaintiff has filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
Dkt. No. 64. He seeks an order “to stop Dr. Murphy from
deciding, performing or having anything to do” with
providing him medical care. Id. at 1. The plaintiff
describes in detail the basis for his motion, which primarily
was Dr. Murphy's alleged failure to diagnose and treat
his symptoms, which he alleges resulted in emergency surgery
at Mercy Hospital on June 10, 2018, to remove the
plaintiff's gall bladder. Id. at 1-2.
Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that on June 6, 2018, he
was rushed to the Mercy Hospital emergency room after
vomiting blood and suffering severe stomach pain.
Id. at 1. He allegedly received a CT scan and was
found to have an enlarged gallstone blocking his cystic and
bile ducts. Id. The plaintiff states that he was
given pain medication, told that he would be returned to
Oshkosh and that prison staff would schedule surgery for him
immediately. Id. The next day, the plaintiff had
blood in his urine. Id. He took a bag of bloody
urine to the “HSU” (Health Services Unit) and,
once there, he provided another urine sample which the nurse
took to Dr. Murphy, who allegedly stated that the plaintiff
“was not peeing blood and that's not blood in [his]
urine.” Id. On June 8, the plaintiff visited
Mercy Hospital and staff there told him that the surgery had
been scheduled. Id. at 1-2. The plaintiff states
that he then was returned to prison and that he was in pain,
but had pain medication. Id. at 2. The next evening,
the plaintiff allegedly starting vomiting, and some of the
vomit was bloody. Id. Prison staff allegedly
immediately transported the plaintiff to the emergency room
at Mercy Hospital and on June 10, his gallbladder was
removed. Id. He was hospitalized until June 15 and
then returned to Oshkosh. Id. The plaintiff states
that Dr. Murphy did not see him when he returned to Oshkosh,
but that a nurse did see him. Id. The plaintiff also
states that Dr. Murphy has shown incompetency for years in
treating him, and he attaches several exhibits to his motion.
Dkt. No. 119 at 2-3. In directing the defendants to file a
more detailed response to the plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction, the court stated the following:
Based on the plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction, it appears that he has consistently been
requesting medical care for the same issue and that the
issues have not been resolved over an extended period. The
plaintiff alleges: Dr. Murphy denied that the plaintiff's
urine was bloody a day or two before he needed emergency
surgery, Dr. Murphy did not treat the plaintiff's stomach
pain which resulted in the plaintiff needing emergency
surgery to have his gall bladder removed, Dr. Murphy has not
addressed the plaintiff's leaky urine issue, and Dr.
Murphy has not addressed the plaintiff's right testicle
pain. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff
understandably does not want Dr. Murphy to treat him. He also
claims that there are other doctors at Oshkosh who can treat
him. The plaintiff's allegations constitute more than
mere disagreement with a course of treatment.
Dkt. No. 119 at 8-9.
their more detailed response, the defendants contend that the
plaintiff's request for an order prohibiting Dr. Murphy
from treating him “is wholly unsupported by either the
facts or the law.” Dkt. No. 129 at 1. According to the
defendants, the plaintiff has not established facts necessary
for the court to grant his motion, and the facts that they
submitted establish that the court should deny the motion.
Id. at 1-2. In his reply, the plaintiff reiterates
that he has not been given good medical care and that two
other doctors at Oshkosh could treat him. Dkt. No. 134. The
plaintiff states that Dr. Murphy has “constantly
misdiagnosed [his] medical problems and that too can be
evidence of deliberate indifference.” Id. at
3. The plaintiff goes on to describe his disagreement with
Dr. Murphy's treatment of him. Id. at 3-7.
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
purpose of such an injunction is to minimize the hardship to
the parties pending the ultimate resolution of the
lawsuit.” Fahenm-El v. Klincar, 841 F.2d 712,
717 (7th Cir. 1988). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the
plaintiff has the burden of establishing that (1) he is
likely to succeed on the merits of his claim; (2) he has no
adequate remedy at law; and (3) he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm without the injunction. Planned
Parenthood of Ind., Inc. v. Comm'r of Ind. State
Dep't of Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012),
citing Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez,
679 F.3d 583, 589-90 (7th Cir. 2012).
context of prisoner litigation, the scope of the court's
authority to issue an injunction is circumscribed by the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2012).
Under the PLRA, preliminary injunctive relief “must be
narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct
the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be
the least intrusive means necessary to correct that
harm.” 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(2); see also
Westefer, 682 F.3d at 683 (noting the PLRA
“enforces a point repeatedly made by the Supreme Court
in cases challenging prison conditions: prisons officials
have broad administrative and discretionary authority over
the institutions they manage”) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
defendants filed the plaintiff's HSU records from January
to July 2018. Dkt. No. 130-1. The defendants summarize these
records in their most recent response to the motion for
injunctive relief, and argue that the records show that the
plaintiff has received extensive medical care.
Specifically, Dr. Murphy had an appointment with Jackson on
April 10, 2018, due to Jackson's complaints of urinary
incontinence. (Murphy Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 1003 at 21.) Dr.
Murphy noted that Jackson remained functional and that the
best course of treatment was for Jackson to wait to be seen
by UW Urology for his incontinence. As for his chronic
abdominal pain, which Dr. Murphy had been treating for
several years, Dr. Murphy recommended a trial of Imipramine,
a prescription medication, but Jackson refused to take it,
which Dr. Murphy believed showed Jackson was ...