Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02343/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-02343-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO MGD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Greg Robbins,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 18-02343-PHX-MTL (DMF)

ORDER

Plaintiff Greg Robbins, who is currently confined in the Arizona State Prison 

Complex-Lewis, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending 

before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 109.) 

The Court will stay a ruling on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and order 

additional briefing. 

I. Background

On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff had total knee replacement surgery; Plaintiff subsequently 

filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, in which he stated he was not receiving medical 

ice to keep down the swelling or physical therapy. (Doc. 69.) In a December 23, 2019 

Order, the Court denied the motion for injunctive relief because the records produced 

showed that Plaintiff had received medical ice and physical therapy. (Doc. 108.) On 

January 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the December 23, 2019 

Order. (Doc. 109.) In a January 15, 2020 Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Reconsideration because Plaintiff’s Motion did not address the issues of medical ice or 

Case 2:18-cv-02343-MTL-DMF Document 119 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

physical therapy, which were the basis of Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. (Doc. 

111.) However, in his Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff did request an order requiring 

Defendants to send him to a knee specialist for his ongoing knee issues, and the Court 

construed that request as a new Motion for Preliminary Injunction and ordered additional 

briefing. (Id.)

II. Motion for Preliminary Injunction 

In his pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff states that “something is 

seriously wrong with [his] knee,” it is swollen and he cannot fully straighten it, he cannot 

walk or stand without level 10 pain, the left side “burns like it is on fire,” and he is in a 

wheelchair. (Doc. 109 at 2-3.) 

In their Response filed on January 29, 2020, Defendants Ryan and Shinn assert that 

Plaintiff had an appointment scheduled for the first week of February 2020 with the 

specialist who performed Plaintiff’s knee surgery. (Doc. 112 at 3.) 

In his supplemental Reply filed on February 12, 2020, Plaintiff states that on 

February 7, 2020, he saw the surgeon, who took x-rays and “explained that the left knee 

bone had collapsed under the hardware.” (Doc. 116 at 4.) Plaintiff does not say what this 

means or if the surgeon recommended any further knee treatment. Plaintiff also states that 

the surgeon sent a test kit with Plaintiff for Centurion, the prison healthcare provider, to 

check for infection, but as of February 11, 2020, Centurion had “not tested Plaintiff’s knee 

with the infection kit[.]” (Id.) Plaintiff further asserts that “to this day, [he] sits with a 

broken knee—in level 10 pain” and neither Centurion nor Shinn have done anything to get 

his knee repaired. (Id.) Plaintiff also contends that he is not receiving his pain medication, 

Gabapentin, three times daily as prescribed. (Id. at 6-7.) Instead, he receives it twice daily 

and two nurse practitioners decided to conduct an experiment with Plaintiff’s Gabapentin

and crush it in water, which interferes with time-delay release of the drug and leaves 

Plaintiff without any pain relief after two hours. (Id.) 

Plaintiff raises new issues in his supplemental Reply that must be addressed before 

the Court can rule on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court will 

Case 2:18-cv-02343-MTL-DMF Document 119 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

therefore direct Defendants to supplement their Response with the medical records from 

Plaintiff’s February 7, 2020 visit with the specialist and records of any other care or 

treatment Plaintiff has received for his knee since then, including any reports or 

recommendations from the specialist. Defendants must also address Plaintiff’s evidence 

that he is not receiving his Gabapentin as prescribed. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 109), and a ruling on the Motion is stayed pending further 

briefing.

(2) Within 10 days of the date of this Order, Defendants must file a supplemental 

brief with the medical records from Plaintiff’s February 7, 2020 appointment with the 

specialist, including any reports or recommendations from the specialist, as well as records 

of any other care or treatment Plaintiff has received for his knee since then. Defendants 

must also address Plaintiff’s contentions regarding his pain medication. 

(3) Within 10 days after receipt of Defendants’ supplemental brief, Plaintiff may 

file a supplemental reply.

(4) All other matters must remain with the Magistrate Judge for disposition as 

appropriate.

Dated this 11th day of March, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-02343-MTL-DMF Document 119 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 3