United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, El Dorado Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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.
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). 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).
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)
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).
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).
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).
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
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 ...