Free Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv—00082-GIVIS Document 22 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
WILLIAM H. BOOZE, IV, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. Action N0. 07-82-GMS
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, g
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington, this is/Fblday of ,2007;
The plaintiff, William H. Booze ("Booze"), a prisoner housed at the Delaware
Correctional Center, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro se and was
granted leave to proceed informa pauperis. (D.I. 6.) Pending before the court is Booze’s letter/
motion for injunctive relief to provide medical services, to preclude the defendants from
interfering with Booze’s right to access the courts, and to stop defendants from taking retaliatory
action against Booze. (D.I. 8.) The parties have not yet been served, and therefore, the court
ordered Warden Thomas L. Carroll ("Warden Ca.rroll") and Correctional Medical Services
(“CMS") to respond to the letter/motion. (D.I. 9.) Both Warden Carroll and CMS filed their
response on May 14,2007. (D.I. I6, 18.)
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that granting
preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonrnoving party; and (4) that the
public interest favors such relief Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708

Case 1:07-cv—00082-Gl\/IS Document 22 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 2 of 3
(3d Cir. 2004)(citation omitted). "Preliminary injunctive relief is ‘an extraordinary remedy’ and
‘should be granted only in limited circumstances."’ Id (citations omitted).
Booze asserts that on February 13, 2007, all medication was removed from his quarters
and he was told as long as he was filing law suits certain medical personnel "would see to it that
[he] suffered." (D.I. 8.) Booze contends he has constant pain, but is refused "pain-off”s" for the
pain even though it was prescribed. Booze also refers to two previously mailed letters to the
court, neither of which were received.
Documents submitted by Warden Carroll and CMS indicate that Booze has a number of
medical conditions and is prescribed a number of medications, including Synthroid, Lopressor,
nitroglycerin patch, Excedrin and Zocor. The records indicate that in the past, Booze had "KOP"
(i.e., keep on person) privileges to self-medicate, but the privilege was cancelled on prior
occasions, and as recently as February 13, 2007, due to Booze "hoarding" medication. There was
concern that the hoarding could cause harm to Booze or those around him if quantities of
medications were readily available in Booze’s cell. As a result, certain of his medications, such
as nitroglycerin, are nurse-administered, while Booze has "KOP" privileges for other
medications. The record further reflects that on numerous occasions Booze has refused his
medication. Finally, the affidavit of Legal Services Administrator, Michael Little, and other
documents indicate that Booze has adequate access to the courts.
Upon review of the allegations made by Booze and the documents submitted by Warden
Carroll and CMS, the court concludes that Booze has not demonstrated the likelihood of success
on the merits. Proof of a retaliation claim requires that Booze demonstrate (1) he engaged in
protected activity; (2) he was subjected to adverse actions by a state actor; and (3) the protected
activity was a substantial motivating factor in the state actor’s decision to take adverse action.

Case 1:07-cv—00082-G|\/IS Document 22 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 3 of 3
Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148, 160-61 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd
0fEduc. v. Doyle, 429 U . S. 274 (1977); see also Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, (3d Cir.
2000) (a fact finder could conclude that retaliatory placement in administrative confinement
would "deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his First Amendment rights"
(citations omitted)). To the extent that Booze’s claim of retaliation is based upon the denial of
medications, the record does not support a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need. See Farmer v. Brennan, 51 1 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Rather, the record reflects that Booze
lost his "KOP" medication privileges due to recurrent hoarding of medications. As to his access
to courts claim, again Booze has not met his burden for injunctive relieve. See Bounds v. Smith, 1
430 U.S. 817, 822 (1977) (prisons must give inmates access to law libraries or direct legal
assistance). The record indicates that Booze receives appropriate access to the courts and, it
appears that the court is receiving Booze’s filings. Given the exhibits submitted to the court by
Warden Carroll and CMS, Booze has not demonstrated the requisites necessary for issuance of a
temporary restraining order, particularly the prongs requiring a demonstration of the likelihood of
success on the merits or a showing of irreparable harm.
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing analysis, Booze’s letter/motion for injunctive
relief (D.1. 8) is denied.

F I L E D
J U}-1 1 5 EGG?
¤lé?¤Pé$E‘é%Ef§’l’vE§E