Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Badger v. Loe

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, El Dorado Division

July 31, 2018

SHERIFF MIKE LOE, Columbia County, Arkansas; DOUG WOOD, Chief Deputy, Columbia County Sheriff Department; GREG HAWLEY, Jail Administrator; Columbia County Jail; DARYL ELKINS, Medical Doctor; and KELLY BLAIR, Investigator, Columbia County Jail DEFENDANTS



         This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, Craytonia Latoy Badger, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a Report and Recommendation. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining order and Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 20). Defendants have filed a Response in opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 24).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Columbia County Detention Center (“CCDC”) in Magnolia, Arkansas. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 25, 2018, in the Eastern District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 2). Two days later he filed an Amended Complaint adding a claim for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 5).[1] The case was transferred to the Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division, on May 1, 2018. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted the following day. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff has named Sheriff Mike Loe, Chief Deputy Doug Wood, Jail Administrator Greg Hawley, Dr. Daryl Elkins, and Investigator Kelly Blair as Defendants. He claims he is being denied medical care and has been discriminated against. He is seeking damages and injunctive relief. (ECF Nos. 1, 5).

         Plaintiff filed his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on June 13, 2018. He also filed a Declaration and Brief in support of the motion. (ECF No. 21). In the Declaration Plaintiff states:

…I make this declaration in support of my motion for temporarily restraining order and a preliminary injunction to ensure that I receive necessary medical care…I have a large ‘knot” on the back of head. It often swells up and becomes very painful. It also disrupts my sleep to where, I cannot lay properly. I have completed a large number of sick call request, and only a few of them was answered with limited or no action taken…my injury is unknown, but it poses a real risk to my life, because of the swelling and pain that it causes. I have asked defendant Doug Wood, Elkins and Love [Loe] to send me to a surgery doctor to have it removed. The doctor at the Emergency room also refered me to a local surgery doctor, but the defendants refuse to set an appointment, base on the cost.

(ECF No. 21, p. 1)

         Plaintiff also states Defendants have “ignored his requests for treatment, has falsified documentation pretending to have cared for the plaintiff and refused to provide treatment for needed medical care basic on cost associated with care and a emergency room referral.” (ECF No. 20, pp. 1-2). Plaintiff is seeking “proper medical care”. (ECF No. 21, p. 1).

         Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff's motion arguing he is not entitled to a preliminary injunction because Plaintiff fails to allege facts to support a conclusion that he is in immediate danger of irreparable harm. (ECF No. 24).


         Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures governs the issuance of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. In deciding a motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, the courts are instructed to consider the following factors: (1) the probability of success on the merits; (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (3) the balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other interested parties; and (4) whether the issuance of an injunction is in the public interest. Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc); see also Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Rauh Rubber, Inc., 130 F.3d 1305, 1307 (8th Cir. 1997); Sanborn Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co., 997 F.2d 484, 485-86 (8th Cir. 1993). While no single factor in itself is dispositive, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held “the two most critical factors for a district court to consider in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction are (1) the probability that plaintiff will succeed on the merits, and (2) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted.” Chicago Stadium Corp. v. Scallen, 530 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1976).

         The burden of proving a preliminary injunction is warranted rests on the movant. Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995). Further, the Eighth Circuit has instructed that “in the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution because judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and intractable problems of prison administration.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).


         In his complaint Plaintiff alleges he has a knot on his head that is painful and potentially dangerous to his health. Although Plaintiff is not completely clear on what he believes is “proper medical care”, it appears he is asking the Court to order Defendants to send him to a surgeon to have the knot removed. Based on a review of the pleadings and exhibits submitted ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.