Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03227/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03227-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3227

___________

David Williams, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Correctional Medical Services; Paul * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Torrez, CMS Regional Administrator; *

Arthur Culpepper, CMS Ombudsman; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Patricia Kelly, Dr.; Connie Hubbard, *

A.N.P., Varner Super Max, ADC; Kay *

Brodnax, Infirmary Manager; Laura *

McCarty, CMS Grievance Responder, *

Varner Unit, ADC; Larry Norris, *

Director, Arkansas Department of *

Correction; Max Mobley, ADC Deputy *

Director, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2006

Filed: February 15, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-3227 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2006 Entry ID: 2010115
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas.

-2-

In this interlocutory appeal, Arkansas inmate David Williams challenges the

district court’s1

 order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. Following

careful review of the record, including consideration of the factors discussed in

Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we

agree with the district court that Williams did not meet his burden of establishing a

preliminary injunction should issue with regard to his claims concerning Hepatitis C

testing and treatment. See Manion v. Nagin, 255 F.3d 535, 538 (8th Cir. 2001) (“A

district court has broad discretion when ruling on requests for preliminary injunctions,

and [court of appeals] will reverse only for clearly erroneous factual determinations,

an error of law, or abuse of discretion.”); Dataphase Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d at 113 (to

determine whether injunctive relief is warranted, court must balance threat of

irreparable harm to movant, harm to nonmoving party should injunction issue,

likelihood of success on merits, and public interest). Williams has no standing here

to seek injunctive relief on behalf of other inmates. See Meis v. Gunter, 906 F.2d 364,

366-68 (8th Cir. 1990). In addition, Williams did not assert or show that he was

personally under a threat of irreparable harm necessitating the injunctive relief he

sought, nor did he establish a likelihood of success on the merits. See generally

Bender v. Regier, 385 F.3d 1133, 1135 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing Hepatitis C). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3227 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2006 Entry ID: 2010115