2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-31-2008 

# Ru sh v . C orr M ed S e r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-4552

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " R ush v . C orr M e d S e r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 762. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/762B L D - 233 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 07- 4552

___________ DAVI D R . RU S H, A ppel l ant

v. CO RR E CT I ONAL M E DI CA L S E RV I CE S , I NC . ; S CO T AL T M AN; C H R IS T IN E M A L A N E Y ; D O N N A P L A N T E ; M D JO H N D O E ; G A IL ELL ER ; FRE D ER I CK D U RST ; M D M U H A M M A D N I A Z; FI RST C O R R E C T IO N A L M E D IC A L , IN C . ; M D S IT T A A L I; M D M CD ON ALD ; DEB BI E RO DW ELLER

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 00514) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 J une 19, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , R E N D E L L and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y31, 2008)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A p p ell an t, D av id R u sh , ap p ea ls from an o rde r of the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtT o the ext entthatR us h s eeks t o appea l fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s O ct ober31, 2007 1 o rd e r, p a rtiallyd ism iss in g h is c o m p lain t, w e lac k ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r h is a p p e a l at th is t i m e. A n or derent er ed bya D i s tr i ctC our tthatdeci des few erthan al l of the cl ai m s , or d e ter m in e s th e rig h ts a n d liab ili ties o f f e w e r th a n a ll o f

th e p a rties , is n o t im m e d iate ly a pp e a l a bl e un l e s s the D i s tr i c tCour tdi r e c t s e ntryof a fi na l j ud gmen t . Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 54( b) . B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s O ct ober31, 2007 or derdoes notdi s m i s s al l cl ai m s as t o al l part i es and the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notdi r ectentryof j udgm entunderR ul e 54( b) , t he or deri s notappea l abl e atthi s t i m e. 2 forthe D i s tr i ctof D el aw ar e deny i ng hi s m ot i on forpr el i m i naryi nj unct i ve r el i ef a nd a t empora ryr es tr ai ni ng or der( "TR O ”) . R us h al s o appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der deny i ng hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 59( e) . Forthe r eas ons 1 th a t f o llo w , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . R u sh ’s co m p lai n t, fil ed p u rsua n t t o 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 , so u g h t a t em p o rary restrai n ing o rde r an d injun cti v e re li ef o rde ri n g em erg en cym ed ical trea tm en t of h is sev ere h ea lth co n d it ion s. O n O ctob er 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istri ct C o u rtd en ied R u sh ’s req u est fo r a t empora ryr es tr ai ni ng or derand fori nj unct i ve r el i ef. R us h fi l ed a mot i on for reconsi derat i on , w hich the D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed o n N ov em ber 19, 2007 . R ush ap peals . W e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er this ap p ea l pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 2 (a)(1). I n rev iew ing a d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f in jun cti v e re li ef

, “‘[ w ]e rev iew the d istri ct co u rt ’s concl us i ons of l aw i n a pl enaryfas hi on, i t s fi ndi ngs of fa ctundera cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d, and i t s deci s i on t o gr antordenythe i nj unct i on foran abus e of di s cr et i on. ’ ” N ew J e rs e yH o s p . A s s ’n v . W a ld m a n , 7 3 F .3 d 5 0 9 , 5 1 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). W e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff

i r m a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or deri f an a ppeal pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al3

q u e s tio n . S e e I.O .P . 1 0 .6 .

“ A p re lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n is a n e x tra o rd in a ryre m e d yth a t sh o u ld b e g ra n ted o n ly if: (1 ) th e p lain tiff

is lik e lyto su c c e e d o n th e m e rits; (2 ) d e n ial w ill re su lt i n irre p a ra b le harm t o the pl ai nt i ff; ( 3) gr ant i ng the i nj unct i on w i l l notr es ul ti n i rr epar abl e harm t o t he defe ndant ; and ( 4) gr ant i ng the i nj unct i on i s i n the publ i c i nt er es t . ” N utr aSw eetC o. v. V i t - M arE nt er s . , I nc. , 176 F. 3d 151, 153 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . “[F] ai l ur e t o es t abl i s h any e le m e n t in [ a p la in tif

f ’s ] f a v o r r e n d e rs a p re lim in a ry in ju n c tio n in a p p ro p ri a te .” Id . Fur therm or e, beca us e of the i ntr act abl e pr obl ems of pr i s on admi ni s tr at i on, a r eques tfor i nj unct i ve r el i ef i n t he pr i s on cont extm us tbe vi ew ed w i th cons i der abl e ca ut i on. G off v. H a rp e r, 6 0 F .3 d 5 1 8 , 5 2 0 (8 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatR us h coul d nots how i rr epar abl e harm abs ent i ssuance o f t he inj un ct i on . W e agree. T o sho w i rr eparable har m , a plai nti ff m ust demonstr at e a c l ears how i ng of i m m edi at e, i rr epar abl e i nj ury ; an i nj unct i on m aynotbe u s e d t o e l i m i n a t e th e p o s s i b i l i ty o f a r e m o t e f

u tu r e i n j u ry. A c i e rn o v . N e w C a s t l e C o u n ty, 4 0 F .3 d 6 4 5 , 6 5 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). Ru s h h a s b e e n d i a g n o s e d wi th He p a t i t i s C, c i rrh o s i s o f th e l i v e ra n d h a s a l i p o ma g ro w th . R u s h ’s c o m p la in t a ls o a lle g e s th a t h e s u f f e rs f ro m a n a tr o p h ie d s h o u ld e r m u s c le . O n M a rc h 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 , R u sh b e g a n re c e iv in g In ter f e ro n in jec tio n s f

o r th e tre a tm e n t o f

h is H epat i t i s C . A ccor di ngl y , R us h’ s r eques tfori nj unct i ve r el i ef r egar di ng the tr eatm entof hi s H epat i t i s C appea r s m oot . I n hi s s uppl ement al r es pons e, how ever , R us h as s ert s that4

th e p riso n m e d ica l p e rso n n e l ar e u til izin g a n u n a u th o riz e d p ro to c o l f o r a d m in iste rin g h is In ter f e ro n sh o ts. R u sh a ss e rts th a t th e m e d ica l p e rso n n e l p re p a re th e sy rin g e o u tsid e h is v iew , thu s p lac in g h im in d a n g e r o f c o n tra c tin g H IV . R u sh , h o w e v e r, f a ils to d e m o n stra te h o w the p roto co l of

p rep aring the s yri n g e o u tsi d e o f h is view p lace s h im in an yd an g er, m uch l ess i m m ediat e dan ger, of co ntr act i ng H IV . R egardi ng his l i po m a grow th, R ush asse rt s tha t th e g row th is pa inf u l and that su rge ryis ne ce ssary . T h e re co rd, ho w ev er, demonstr at es thatthe l i pom a gr ow th i s beni gn and does notcons t i tut e a s er i ous m edi cal condi t i on. M or eover , the s ur gi cal pr ocedur e i s el ect i ve. T he r ecor d al s o demonstr at es thatR us h’ s l i verci r r hos i s i s bei ng cont i nuous l ym oni t or ed and tr eat ed w i th no i ndi cat i on thatthe condi t i on pl ace s hi m i n dangerof i m m edi at e i rr epar abl e harm . Fur therm or e, R us h has fai l ed t o demonstr at e thathi s atr ophi ed s houl deri s the type of s er i ous m edi cal condi t i on w hi ch pl ace s hi m i n dangerof i m m edi at e harm . A ccor di ngl y , R us h has not es t abl i s hed the el ement s nece s s aryforthe i s s uance of a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the or der s of the D i s tr i ct C o u rt . R u sh ’s m o ti o n fo r l ea v e to f il e a su p p lem en t t o h is em erg en cyp reli m inary in ju n c tio n is g ra n te d , a n d w e h a v e c o n s id e re d h is s u p p le m e n t in re n d e ri n g o u r d e c is io n . R u sh ’s “ E m e rg e n c yP re lim in a ryIn ju n c tio n f

o r Im m in e n t H a rm & T R O M o tio n ” is d e n ie d . A p p e lle e s ’ m o tio n to f ile a p p e n d ic e s u n d e r s e a l is g ra n te d .