UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA HA RV EYME RRI WEA TH ER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-2453 ( CKK) ) HARL EY LAPPI

N et al., ) ) De fe nd ants . )

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON AND ORDER The plaintiff, a

fede ral prisone r proc eedingin forma pa uperis, filed a

damag es ac tion for $5 mil lio n, a lle g ingthat pr iso n o ff ic ia ls h ave de nie d h im m e dic a l tr e atme nt f or He patit is C , sh ow ingde lib e rate ind if

fe re nc e to h is s e ri ou s me dic a l ne e ds in v iol atio n o f h is E ig hth Amendment prote ctions. Wi th his complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which was de nied without prejudice beca use the “ submissi on does not mention any eff orts to notify

the def endants” of the motion and bec ause “ it is notclea r fr om plaintiff’s motion or the unde rlying c omplaint that he stands to suffer immediate or irr epar able injury befor e defe ndants ca

n be hea rd in opposition.” Order

(De c. 31, 2009). N ow the plaintiff ha s filed a second motion for a

preliminary

injunction, which is identical to the first one. Asse rting that the pla int if f “ fa c e s an imme diate thr e at to his he a lth ” be c a us e “ [f]o r o ve r 1 1 ye ars the de fe nd ants have de nie d th e pla int if

f m e dic a l c are tr e atme nt f or He patit is C ,” it s e e ks an o rd e r f ro m th is Court compelling the defe ndants “to provide the plaintiff medica l car e tre atment” f or He patitis C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Mot.”) at 1, 3. For the re asons stated, the se cond motion for a pre liminary

injunction will also be denied without prejudice
.- 2 -

In o rd e r t o o bta in p re lim ina ry inj un c tiv e re lie f p ur su ant t o F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il Procedur e 65, the r equestingparty must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of succe ss on the merits; (2) that he w ould suffer irrepa rable injury

if the injunction were not gr anted; (3) that an inj un c tio n w ou ld n ot s ub sta nti a lly inj ur e oth e r i nte re ste d p art ie s; a nd (4 ) t hat th e pu bli c int e re st would be fur

there d by the injunction. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 2 9 0 , 2 9 7 ( D
. C
. C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. In a p p l yi n gth i s t e s t , a

c o urtm ay e mp l o y a

s l i d i n gs c a l e w h e r e b y a particula rly strongshowing in one the four are as may

compensate for w eakne ss in another. Id. (qu o t i n g CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738, 747 ( D.C. Cir. 1995) (“An injunction may

be justified, for e x ample, whe re the re is a pa rticularly stronglikelihood of
succe ss on the merits even if there is a relatively

slight showingof irre para ble injury .”). Am on gthe fo ur

re qu ir e d s ho wi ng s, it i s “ pa rt ic ula rl y imp or tant f or the [mov ant] t o demonstrate a

substantial likelihood of success on the me rits.” Barton v. Dist. of Columbia, 131 F. S u p p . 2 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 2 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g Benten v . Kessler, 5 0 5 U
. S
. 1 0 8 4 , 1 0 8 5 ( 1 9 9 2 ) )
. If the movant fa ils to do so, “it would t ake a very strongshowing with respec t to the other preliminary

injunction factors to turn the tide in plaintiff[’s] favor.” Dave nport v. Int’l Bhd. of Te am ste rs, 16 6 F .3 d 3 56 , 3 66 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 9) . In a dd iti on , a pla int if f m us t sh owat le a st s ome likelihood of irrepa

rable harm in the a

bsence of an injunction. Se e W inte r v . Na t. R es. De

f. Council, Inc., -- - U .S. -- -, 12 9 S. Ct. 36 5, 37 5 ( 20 08 ) ( ho ldi ngthat a pla int if f m us t de mon str ate that in the absenc e of a

n injunction, “irrepa

rable injury

is likely ,” and not mer ely a “possibility ”); CityFed , 58 F.3d at 747 (holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate “ ‘at lea st some injury ’ for a preliminary

injunction to is sue ... [because ] ‘the basis of injunctive relief in fede ral c ourts has al wa y s b ee ni rr ep ar ab l e h arm. . . . ’” (qu o t i n g Sampson v. Murray , 415 U.S. 61, 88 (1974)).- 3 -

“Irre para ble har m” is an imminent injury that is both gre at and c erta in, and that leg al re medies cannot r epair
. W

isconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 7 5 8 F. 2 d 6 6 9 , 6 7 4 (D
. C
. C i r. 1 9 8 5 ) ( ci t i n g Sampson v. Murray , 41 5 U .S. at 88 ; Connecticut v. M assachusetts, 28 2 U .S. 66 0, 67 4 ( 19 31 ); As hla nd Oi l, In c . v . FTC, 409 F. Supp. 297, 307) (1976) ). Whil e the plaintiff ha s nominally addre ssed all four pr ong s of the pre liminary injunction sta nd ard , h e ha s f

a ile d to de mon str ate e ith e r t hat he is l ike ly

to p re va il o n th e un de rl yingme ri ts of the c ase or

that the har

m he claims he w ill suffer is imminent, gr eat a nd cer tain. Plaintiff acknow ledg es both requir ements. See Mot. at 2 (noting that to prevail on his damag es cla im, he must show that “the alleg ed deprivation of medica l need wa s a condition of urg ency , one that
m ay p ro d u ce d ea th , d ege n er at i o n , o r e x tre m e p ai n ” ( ci t i n g Johnson v. W right, 412 F.2d 398 ( 2d Cir. 2005) (discussingstandard f or showingEig hth Amendment violation in deprivation of
me dic a l tr e atme nt) ); see also Mo t at 2 (conta ining a section entitled “Plaintiff F ace a Substantial Threat of Irre para

ble Har m”). De spite rec og nizi ngwhat he must show, the plaintiff doe s not provide fa cts sufficie nt to do so. The motion contains scant re levant fa cts. For example, the plaintiff does not indicate the nature of the ha rm he e x pects to suffe r if an injunction is not issued, but only

conclusorily

descr ibes it as a ser ious dang er to his hea lth. Id. at 1 ( re fe rr ingto “immediate da

ng er” ), 2 (r efe rringto “serious phy sical injury”), 3 ( ref err ing to “ substantial risk of harm” ). He does not identify the medication that medical staff alleg edly rec ommended or order ed, but which the de fenda nts alleg edly

did not provide. The medic ation he see ks is not identified. Most striking, the motion does not explain why or how the a lleg ed denia l of medica l treatment over the c ourse of the past ele ven y ear s prese nts an imminent inj ury that is both gre at and ce rtain today
. See id. at 2 ( “ I t ha s b e e n o ve r 1 1 ye ars pla int if f h a d n ot b e e n p ro vid e d w ith- 4 -

me dia l c are tr e atme nt b y

de fe nd ant. ” ). Ind e e d, the pla int if f’ s r e pr e se ntatio ns wi th r e sp e c t to irrepa rable harm c onsists of justtwo substantive statements: “The plaintiff is under imminent dang er of serious phy sical injury

at the time filed the c omplaint. ... The defe ndant have interfe red w ith medical judg ment by non-medica l fac tors.” Id. Such conclusory statements do not substantiate plaintiff’s alleg ations. There fore , the Court has no basis on which to c onclude that th e pla int if

f w ill su ff e r i rr e pa ra ble ha rm or that he is l ike ly

to p re va il o n th e me ri ts o f h is
un d e r l yi n gc l a i m . A c c o r d i n g l y, i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED that the plaintiff’ s second motion for a preliminary

injunction is DENI ED without prejudice.
/ s / C O LLE E N K O LLA R
- K O T E LLY Da t e: J an u ary

2 1 , 2 0 1 0 Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge