Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv—O0O11-SLR Document 21 Filed 02/03/2006 Page1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LEONARD K. BAYLIS, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. No. 06-11-SLR
STANLEY TAYLOR, et al., g
Defendants. g
M MORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff, Leonard K. Baylis, an inmate housed at the
Delaware Correctional Center (“DCC"), moves the court for
emergency injunctive relief. (D.I. 3) Plaintiff alleges he has
mental health problems and has been treated for his condition for
many years.
Plaintiff was originally housed at the Howard Young
Correctional Institution (“HRYCI”), where he received treatment
for his mental health problems which include seizures, fugue
state, adult ADD, and chronic depression. (D.I. 2) He was
transferred to the DCC on November 17, 2005. He seeks injunctive
relief asserting that, since his transfer to the DCC, he has not
received the proper medications and mental health therapy. Idg
On January 6, 2006, the court ordered defendants to respond to
plaintiff’s allegations regarding medical treatment. Responses
were filed with medical records and reports attached as exhibits.
(D.I. 17, ia)
As discussed in the January 6, 2006 order, when considering

Case 1 :06-cv—00O1 1-SLR Document 21 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 2 of 4
a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction, plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he is likely to
succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in irreparable
harm; (3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable
harm to the defendant(s); and (4) granting the injunction is in
the public interest. Maldonado v. Houstoun, 157 F.3d 179, 184
(3d Cir. 1997). “[A]n injunction may not be used simply to
eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury, or a future
invasion of rights." Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chems.
Qgrp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980)(quoting Holiday Inns of
Am., Inc. v. B & B Corp., 409 F.2d 614, 618 (3d Cir. 1969)}. "The
relevant inquiry is whether the movant is in danger of suffering
irreparable harm at the time the preliminary injunction is to be
issued." SI Handling Sys., Inc. v. Heisley, 753 F.2d 1244, 1264
(3d Cir. 1985).
Defendants argue that Baylis is not entitled to injunctive
relief since it is unlikely he will succeed on the merits, and he
will not suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.
(D.I. 17) As mentioned above, defendants submitted records in
support of their position. The court has thoroughly reviewed the
medical records and reports submitted by defendants.
The records show that, as of the date of his transfer to DCC
on November 17, 2005, a physician ordered that Baylis be

Case 1 :06-cv—O0O1 1-SLR Document 21 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 3 of 4
administered Dilantin? twice a day. On the same day he was n
referred to mental health. On November 19, 2005, Baylis made a
request for mental health services and on November 24, 2005, he
received mental health treatment, including the medications
Ritalinz and Prozacg, and he was scheduled for a follow—up visit
in three months. The medication administration record for
December 2005 indicates that Baylis was administered Dilantin and
Prozac on a daily basis.
Baylis was next seen on January 11, 2006. At that time, Dr.
Anthony Cannuli (“Dr. Cannuli”) discontinued the use of Ritalin
because it is contraindicated in persons with a history of
seizures and Baylis has a seizure disorder history. Dr. Cannuli
states that Baylis is being prescribed and administered
appropriate medication for his conditions and there is no danger
of medical/psychiatric harm to Baylis in the administration of
the medications Baylis is currently prescribed or in his current
mental health treatment plan.
Given the exhibits submitted to the court, Baylis has not
demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits. Baylis
alleges that he has not received mental health treatment and
1Dilantin (phenytoin) is indicated for the control of tonic—clonic
(grand mal) seizures and psychomotor{temporal lobe)seizures. www.pfizer.com/
pfizer/download/uspi_dilantin125.pdf.
2Ritalin is indicated in the treatment of Attention Deficit
Hyperactivities Disorder. Physicians' Desk Reference 2256 (60* ed. 2006).
3Prozac is indicated in the treatment of major depressive disorder.
Physicians’ Desk Reference 1773 (60m ed. 2006}.

Case 1 :06-cv—00O1 1-SLR Document 21 Filed 02/03/2006 Page 4 of 4
medication, yet the medical records and reports support an
opposite conclusion. Other than his allegations, Baylis provides
nothing to the court to demonstrate irreparable harm. Indeed,
Baylis has neither demonstrated the likelihood of success on the
merits, nor has he demonstrated irreparable harm to justify the
issuance of emergency injunctive relief.
Now, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this g§j day or
Fe.brv;.»·h
January, 2006, that the motion for emergency injunctive relief is
(D.I. 3) is DENIED.