Free Order on Motion for TRO - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv—OO448-GIVIS Document 33 Filed O2/25/2008 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RUSSELL STEEDLEY, )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civ. Action No. 07-448-GMS-MPT
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, j
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
The plaintiff, Russell Steedley ("Steedley"), a prisoner housed at the Delaware
Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Steedley proceeds pro se, and was granted leave to proceed informa pauperis. (D.I. 9.)
Concurrent with the filing of his complaint, Steedley filed a motion for temporary restraining
order/preliminary inunction. (D.I.4.) Steedley seeks total hip replacement surgery. The
defendant, Correctional Medical Services, Inc. ("CMS"), responded to the motion and advised
that Steedley "is currently on the list for hip replacement surgery."’ (D.I. 27.)
When considering a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction,
the court determines: (l) the likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the extent to which the
plaintiff is being irreparably harmed by the conduct complained of; (3) the balancing of the
hardships to the respective parties; and (4) the public interest. Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.
Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004)(citation omitted). "[A]n injtmction 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., 6l4 F .2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. l980)(quoting

Case 1:07-cv—OO448-G|\/IS Document 33 Filed O2/25/2008 Page 2 of 2
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. Ikisley, 753 F.2d 1244, 1264
(3d Cir. 1985). "Preliminary injunctive relief is ‘an extraordinary remedy’ and ‘should be
granted only in limited circumstances."’ Id (citations omitted). It is the plaintiff s burden, in
seeking injunctive relief, to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Campbell Soup C0. v.
C0nAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 90 (3d Cir. 1992).
Steedley was informed on September 26, 2007, that his request for hip replacement
surgery was officially approved and that the procedure would take place in "no later than a
couple of months." (D.I. 18.) CMS’s response, filed December 11, 2007, states that Steedley is
currently on the list for hip replacement surgery and it is waiting for the orthopedic surgeon to
schedule the procedure. (D.I. 27.) Given the posture of the case and the pending surgery, the
court finds that Steedley in not in danger of suffering irreparable harm. Indeed, it appears his
motion for injunctive relief is moot. Accordingly, the court will deny Steedley’s motion for
injunctive relief.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that motion for temporary restraining
order/preliminary inunction is denied. (D.l.4.)
/
{ do Q 5
Wilmington, Delaware 2008 [ F I L E D
{ I I . 2 5 EGGS