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

Case 1:07-cv—00504-SLR Document 30 Filed 02/20/2008 Paget of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ADAM WENZKE, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civil Action No. 07-504-SLR
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL g
SERVICES, et al., )
Defendants. g
ORDER
At Wilmington this lgimday of February, 2008, having considered plaintiffs motion
for a preliminary injunction (D.l. 11), and the papers submitted thereto;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is denied, for the reasons that follow;
1. Plaintiff Adam Wenzke, a prisoner housed at the Delaware Correctional
Center, Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January
3, 2008, he filed a motion for preliminary injunction for immediate medical treatment of
testicular masses. (D.l. 11) Defendant Jim Welch, director of health services for the
Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC"), opposes the motion. (D.l. 23)
2. Standard. When considering a motion for a temporary restraining order or
l 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. Houstgun, 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. Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359

Case 1:07-cv—00504-SLB Document 30 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 2 of 4
(3d Cir. 1980)(quoting Holiday Inns of Am., lnc. 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." Sl Handling
Sys., Inc. v. Heisley, 753 F.2d 1244, 1264 (3d Cir. 1985).
3. Discussion. Plaintiff complains that he has been suffering from testicular
problems since 2004 and is in great pain. He alleges that defendants are aware of his
condition, but are not providing him treatment. Defendant Welch responds that
plaintiffs motion should be denied because plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the
merits of his claim and that he is not in danger of suffering irreparable harm.
4. The Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment
requires that prison officials provide inmates with adequate medical care. Estelle v.
Qgmbg, 429 U.S. 97, 103-105 (1976). ln order to set forth a cognizable claim, an
inmate must allege (i) a serious medical need and (ii) acts or omissions by prison
officials that indicate deliberate indifference to that need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
at 104; Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999). A prison official is
deliberately indifferent if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious
harm and fails to take reasonable steps to avoid the harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 837 (1994). A prison official may manifest deliberate indifference by
"intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
at 104-05. "[A] prisoner has no right to choose a specific form of medical treatment,"
so long as the treatment provided is reasonable. Harrison v. Barkley, 219 F .3d 132,
138-140 (2d Cir. 2000). An inmate’s claims against members of a prison medical
department are not viable under § 1983 where the inmate receives continuing care, but
-2-

Case 1:07-cv—00504-SLR Document 30 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 3 of 4
believes that more should be done by way of diagnosis and treatment and maintains
that options available to medical personnel were not pursued on the inmate’s behalf.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 107 (1976). Finally, "mere disagreement as to the
proper medical treatment" is insufficient to state a constitutional violation. S3 Spruill v.
372 F.3d 218, 235 (3d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
5. The court has reviewed plaintiffs medical records. They indicate that he has
been provided treatment by prison doctors Smith and Derossier who are following a
treatment plan for plaintiffs condition. Plaintiff undenrvent ultrasound testing on
December 18, 2006, to examine possible scrotal mass. (D.l. 23, ex. A) The ultrasound
revealed bilateral cysts, 1.0 cm., but no masses were detected. (Q,) Plaintiff was
examined by Dr. Derossier on December 20, 2007, and he diagnosed epidermal cysts
with noted tenderness. (g) On January 11, 2008, plaintiff received another ultra-
sound. (D.l. 27, ex.) Plaintiff advises the court that the technician told him he would be
"informed at a later date after a doctor examined the test results." Medical records
indicate that prison physicians were waiting for the results of the ultrasound to
determine whether there is a need for a urology consultation. (D.l. 23, ex. A)
6. Given the exhibits submitted to the court, plaintiff has not demonstrated the
likelihood of success on the merits. The records indicate that, prior to the time he tiled
his motion for injunctive relief, plaintiff received medical care for his testicular condition.
Moreover, within the past month, plaintiff has undergone medical testing for his
condition and, depending upon the results, may be referred for a urology consultation.
Based upon the foregoing, plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on
the merits to justify the issuance of immediate injunctive relief.
-3-

Case 1:07-cv—O0504-SLR Document 30 Filed O2/20/2008 Page 4 of 4
7. Conclusion. Therefore, the motion for a preliminary injunction (D.I. 11) is
denied.
UNITED STATQS DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-

Case 1:07-cv-00504-SLR

Document 30

Filed 02/20/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00504-SLR

Document 30

Filed 02/20/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00504-SLR

Document 30

Filed 02/20/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-00504-SLR

Document 30

Filed 02/20/2008

Page 4 of 4