Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00243/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00243-3/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

 ____________________________

HENRY JOINER, #140 755 *

Plaintiff, * 

v. * 2:09-CV-243-TFM

 (WO) 

ASSISTANT WARDEN MASON, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _____________________________

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's Motions for a Preliminary and

Permanent Injunction. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction with respect

to his allegation that his constitutional rights are being violated by Defendants’ failure to

provide adequate medical care. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to prohibit Defendants from

continuing to provide inadequate health care due to delays in medical care, inadequate onsite, off-site, and specialty care, issuance of harmful medication, inadequate testing and

treatment, and untimely medical care. As directed, Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's

request for issuance of a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 38.) Upon consideration of

Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary and permanent injunction and Defendants’ response

thereto, the court concludes that the motions are due to be denied.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction “is within the sound discretion

Case 2:09-cv-00243-TFM Document 50 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 7
of the district court....” Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11 Cir. 2002) (citations th

omitted). This court may grant a preliminary injunction only if Plaintiff demonstrates each

of the following prerequisites: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a

substantial threat irreparable injury will occur absent issuance of the injunction; (3) the

threatened injury outweighs the potential damage the requested injunction may cause the

non-moving parties; and (4) the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.

Palmer, 287 F.3d at 1329; McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir.

1998); Cate v. Oldham, 707 F.2d 1176 (11 Cir. 1983); Shatel Corp. v. Mao Ta Lumber and th

Yacht Corp., 697 F.2d 1352 (11 Cir. 1983); see also Parker v. State Board of Pardons and th

Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034-35 (11th Cir. 2001). 

“In this Circuit, ‘[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not

to be granted unless the movant clearly established the “burden of persuasion”’ as to the four

requisites.” McDonald’s, 147 F.3d at 1306; All Care Nursing Service, Inc. v. Bethesda

Memorial Hospital, Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11 Cir. 1989) (a preliminary injunction is th

issued only when “drastic relief” is necessary); Texas v. Seatrain Int’l, S.A., 518 F.2d 175,

179 (5 Cir. 1975) (grant of preliminary injunction “is the exception rather than the rule,” th

and movant must clearly carry the burden of persuasion). The moving party’s failure to

demonstrate a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” may defeat the party’s claim,

regardless of the party’s ability to establish any of the other elements. Church v. City of

Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1342 (11 Cir. 1994); see also Siegel v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163, th

1176 (11 Cir. 2000) (noting that “the absence of a substantial likelihood of irreparable th

Case 2:09-cv-00243-TFM Document 50 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 7
injury would, standing alone, make preliminary injunctive relief improper”). “‘The chief

function of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the

controversy can be fully and fairly adjudicated.’ Northeastern Fl. Chapter of Ass'n of Gen.

Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, Fl., 896 F.2d 1283, 1284 (11 Cir.1990).” th

Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11 Cir. 2001). The th

“extraordinary remedy” provided by an injunction is only available when a “legal right has

been infringed by an injury for which there is no adequate legal remedy and which will result

in irreparable injury if the injunction does not issue.” Alabama v. United States Army Corps

of Eng'rs, 424 F.3d 1117, 1127 (11 Cir. 2005). th

The standard for a permanent injunction is essentially the same as for a preliminary

injunction except that Plaintiff must show actual success on the merits instead of a likelihood

of success.” Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1097 (11 Cir. 2004) (quoting th

Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1213). In addition to succeeding on the merits, a plaintiff must

“demonstrate the presence of two elements: continuing irreparable injury if the injunction

does not issue, and the lack of an adequate remedy at law.” Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1213 (quoting

Newman v. State of Ala., 683 F.2d 1312, 1319 (11 Cir. 1982)). 

th

II. DISCUSSION

Turning to the first prerequisite for issuance of preliminary injunctive relief, the court

considers whether Plaintiff has proven a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

Having thoroughly reviewed the request for a preliminary injunction and in light of

applicable federal law, the court concludes that Plaintiff fails to carry his burden. 

Case 2:09-cv-00243-TFM Document 50 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 7
Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to show a substantial likelihood of success

on his Eighth Amendment claim. A violation of the Eighth Amendment requires a showing

of “deliberate indifference” to an inmate’s health or safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 834 (1994). Specifically, an inmate must show that: (1) the prison officials had

subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; (2) the prison officials disregarded that risk;

and (3) the conduct rises above mere negligence. McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248 (11th

Cir. 1999). To establish an objectively serious deprivation of medical care, a prisoner must

establish: (1) an objectively serious medical need, and (2) that the response made to the need

was poor enough to constitute an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, and not merely

accidental inadequacy, negligence in diagnosis or treatment, or medical malpractice. Taylor

v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11 Cir. 2000). A “serious medical need” is one that has th

been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a

lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention, and, in either case,

must be one that if left unattended poses a substantial risk of serious harm. Kelley v. Hicks,

400 F .3d 1282, 1284 n. 3 (11 Cir. 2005). th

Delay of treatment for a serious condition can rise to the level of deliberate

indifference where it is apparent that delay would detrimentally exacerbate the medical

problem, the delay does seriously exacerbate the medical problem, and the delay is medically

unjustified. Taylor, 221 F.3d at 1259-60 (11th Cir.2000) (citing Hill v. Dekalb Reg'l Youth

Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1187 (11th Cir.1994), overruled on other grounds by, Hope v. Pelzer, 536

U.S. 730, 739 (2002)); Lancaster v. Monroe County, Ala., 116 F.3d 1419, 1425 (11th

Case 2:09-cv-00243-TFM Document 50 Filed 04/02/10 Page 4 of 7
Cir.1997). Whether the delay was tolerable depends on the nature of the medical need and

the reason for the delay. Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1247 (11th Cir.2003).

Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff has a serious medical condition. They argue,

however, that Plaintiff has received timely, appropriate, and adequate medical treatment for

his medical issues. Defendant Siddiq states that in his professional opinion and based on his

review of Plaintiff’s medical records, the care and treatment afforded Mr. Joiner has at all

times met and/or exceeded the standard of care for practicing physicians in Alabama. (Doc.

No. 38, Siddiq Affidavit.) 

Plaintiff’s medical records reflect that subsequent to his refusal to be taken to the

hospital for surgery on April 21, 2009, a second appointment was made for him. Dr. Timothy

Holt performed the following surgical procedures on Plaintiff on June 3, 2009: 1) an anterior

lumbar intrabody fusion, L5-S1; 2) implantation of spacer, L5-S1; 3) an anterior screw

fixation through plate L5-S1; and 4) a posterior removal of ostephytes and

formaninotomies/partial vertebrectomy, S-1 and L-5. Following his surgery, Plaintiff

received rehabilitation at the Kilby Correctional Facility and was then returned to the

Bullock Correctional Facility. (Doc. No. 38, Siddiq Affidavit and Plaintiff’s Medical

Records.) 

Dr. Holt saw Plaintiff again on October 8, 2009 for his continued complaints of pain.

Dr. Holt did not recommend any further surgery and advised Plaintiff to follow up with him

if necessary. Dr. Holt examined Plaintiff again on March 4, 2010 and noted he had

developed Pseudoarthosis at the L5 -S1 post-surgery. The physician recommended surgery

Case 2:09-cv-00243-TFM Document 50 Filed 04/02/10 Page 5 of 7
for the L5 - S1 subluxation which has been ordered and approved. (Doc. No. 38, Siddiq

Affidavit and Plaintiff’s Medical Records.)

Defendants assert that Plaintiff has received appropriate medication for his medical

issues, his medications have been closely monitored by medical staff at the Bullock

Correctional Facility, and medical treatment for Plaintiff’s medical issues have not been

delayed or denied during his incarceration at Bullock. Plaintiff’s medical records also reflect

that he has been issued various medical profiles in response to his medical condition

including no prolonged standing, a bottom bunk, lay-ins, extra blankets, and foot soaks.

(Doc. No. 38, Siddiq Affidavit and Plaintiff’s Medical Records.)

After reviewing the medical records submitted by Defendants in response to Plaintiff’s

request for preliminary injunctive relief, the court cannot say that Plaintiff has shown a

substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff’s medical records reflect that medical

personnel continuously monitor and treat him for his complaints associated with his back

pain in addition to his myriad other medical complaints. Plaintiff’s records likewise show

that medical staff routinely examine him, evaluate his conditions, and respond in accordance

with their evaluations to his various complaints and requests for treatment. The medical

records also establish that attending physicians prescribe relevant medications in an effort

to treat Plaintiff’s physical ailments, and that medical personnel routinely order consultation

requests with outside providers, medical profiles, lab work, x-rays, and additional therapeutic

treatments whenever their observations of Plaintiff indicate the need for such action. The

record reflects that Defendants have not been indifferent to Plaintiff's condition. To the

Case 2:09-cv-00243-TFM Document 50 Filed 04/02/10 Page 6 of 7
extent there exists a difference in medical opinion as to the provision of medical care, a

difference in medical opinion will seldom rise to the level of a constitutional violation and

based on the records filed in this matter does not do so in this case. Hamm v. DeKalb, 774

F.2d 1567, 1575 (11 Cir. 1985) (where a prisoner receives adequate medical care but desires th

to receive a different mode of treatment, the care provided does not amount to deliberate

indifference); Adams v. Poag, 61 F.3d 1537, 1545 (11 Cir. 1995) (whether a defendant th

should have used additional or different diagnostic techniques or forms of treatment “is a

classic example of a matter for medical judgment and therefore not an appropriate basis for

liability under the Eighth Amendment.”).

Having found Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the first requirement for either a

preliminary injunction or a permanent injunction, the court need not consider the other

factors. See Church, 30 F.3d at 1342; Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1176. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the motion for preliminary injunction

and motion for permanent injunction filed by Plaintiff (Doc. Nos. 27 & 28) be and are hereby

DENIED.

Done, this 2 day of April 2010. nd

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00243-TFM Document 50 Filed 04/02/10 Page 7 of 7