United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. Yandle, United States District Judge
Omar Aguilar filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order/Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) along with his
Complaint on May 15, 2019 (Doc. 1). The Court screened
Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
and entered an Order designating the surviving claims (Doc.
13). The Court denied Plaintiff's request for a temporary
restraining order but ordered the defendants to respond to
the request for preliminary injunction (Id. at p.
10). Defendants responded (Docs. 40 and 41) and Plaintiff
replied (Doc. 42). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's
request for a preliminary injunction is
makes the following relevant allegations in his Complaint:
Plaintiff has suffered from pain in the left side of his
abdomen since January or February 2018 (Doc. 13, p. 2). He
also suffers from burning sensations and swelling in his
hands and feet (Id.). He was initially diagnosed
with a urinary tract infection (“UTI”). He was
later told that the UTI was no longer showing up on tests but
he continued to suffer from pain. He was subsequently
diagnosed with a kidney infection and eventually developed
prostatitis (Id. at p. 3). Although Plaintiff has
been seen by numerous medical staff at Menard Correctional
Center (“Menard”) for his condition, they have
continued to pursue an ineffective course of treatment,
leaving him in pain. They have also refused Plaintiff's
requests to be seen by a specialist. His motion requests that
he be sent to an outside specialist for treatment (Doc. 2).
records submitted by Defendants show the following: Plaintiff
first presented to the healthcare unit for pain in his left
side on February 22, 2018 (Doc. 40-1, p. 5). An x-ray showed
gas in his colon and he was provided with medication
(Id. at p. 6). On February 25, 2018, he complained
of pain, fever, chills, and night sweats and was sent to
Chester Memorial Hospital on Dr. Siddiqui's orders
(Id. at p. 7). A CT scan showed pyelonephritis (a
kidney infection) and he was prescribed Ciprofloxacin, an
antibiotic, and Tylenol (Id. at p. 9; 40-2, pp.
1-5). Plaintiff continued to complain of pain in his left
abdomen from March to May 2018 (Doc. 40-1, pp. 13-31). X-rays
and an ultrasound were negative for a UTI and Dr. Siddiqui
prescribed Ciprofloxacin and ordered a urinalysis (Doc. 40-2,
p. 7; 40-1, p. 30).
continued to see healthcare staff in May and June 2018 for
pain (Doc. 40-1, pp. 30-41). On June 2, 2018, Plaintiff
showed no signs of discomfort, burning while urinating, and
had no pain with palpitation (Id. at p. 33).
Additional tests were ordered on June 6, 2018 for Hepatitis
A, B, and C as well as a test of his kidneys (Id. at
pp. 35-39). The Hepatitis tests were negative and his kidney
test was normal. Plaintiff continued to complain of pain
throughout June, July, and August 2018 (Doc. 40-1, pp.
43-52). Dr. Siddiqui saw Plaintiff on August 29, 2018 and
noted Plaintiff's urinalysis was negative and that he was
currently taking Macrobid (Id. at p. 51).
was sent to an outside urologist, Dr. Srinivas Rajamahanty,
on October 30, 2018 (Id. at p. 51, 55-56; Doc. 40-2,
p. 8-10). Dr. Rajamahanty prescribed Doxycycline (an
antibiotic) and scheduled a CT urogram, cystoscopy, and trans
rectal ultrasound guided (TRUS) biopsy (Id.).
December 5, 2018, Plaintiff saw Dr. Siddiqui and complained
of odor in his urine but no pain (Doc. 40-1, p. 62). Dr.
Siddiqui ordered a urinalysis which was performed on December
12, 2018. Plaintiff continued to see healthcare staff in
January and February 2019 (Id. at pp. 72-87). He had
a CT urogram on February 22, 2019 which showed no
abnormalities in his kidney, renal collecting system, or
bladder (Doc. 40-2, pp. 11-12).
had a cystoscopy and TRUS biopsy performed by Dr. Rajamahanty
on April 2, 2019 (Id. at pp. 17-23). Dr. Rajamahanty
diagnosed Plaintiff with recurrent prostatitis and continued
with a course of Bactrim (Id. at pp. 20, 22).
Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Rajamahanty again on April 12, 2019
who noted Plaintiff was on an antibiotic and that he was
informed his prostatitis could be recurrent (Id. at
p. 28). Plaintiff was scheduled to follow-up with Dr.
Rajamahanty on August 23, 2019 (Doc. 40-1, p. 129). Prior to
that follow-up, Plaintiff was seen by the healthcare unit and
his urinalysis at the time was normal
medical records show the following with respect to burning
sensations in Plaintiff's hands and feet: Plaintiff
presented to the healthcare unit on November 17, 2018 for
redness in his hands and feet and was directed to use
hydrocortisone cream (Doc. 40-1, p. 59). He was later advised
to speak with the psychiatric staff because he had stopped
taking his psychiatric medications (Id. at p. 61).
On January 8, 2019, Plaintiff was seen again by the
healthcare staff for redness and burning sensations in his
hands and feet (Id. at p. 71). No redness was noted
and Plaintiff was prescribed Acetaminophen and Ibuprofen. He
was seen again on January 19, 2019 and the medical records
note that he had been complaining about pain and redness
since September 2018 (Id. at p. 75). Plaintiff was
referred to the medical doctor as the condition was
unresolved (Id.). He was seen again on March 23,
2019 for burning and redness and was referred to a doctor
(Id. at p. 101). Plaintiff complained of pain and
burning on June 11, 2019 and was prescribed ASA (Id.
at p. 124). He also was provided reading materials from the
Mayo Clinic on Erythromelalgia and scheduled for a follow-up
in two months (Id. at pp. 124-26).
preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic
remedy” for which there must be a “clear
showing” that a plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)
(quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R Miller, & Mary
Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §2948 (5th ed.
1995)). Specifically, to obtain a preliminary injunction, a
plaintiff must establish: (1) that he has a reasonable
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that he has no
adequate remedy at law; and (3) that he will suffer
irreparable harm absent the injunction. Planned
Parenthood v. Commissioner of Indiana State Dept.
Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012). If the
plaintiff meets his or her burden with respect to these
elements, the Court must then weigh “the balance of
harm to the parties if the injunction is granted or denied
and also evaluate the effect of an injunction on the public
interest.” Id.; Korte v. Sebelius,
735 F.3d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 2013). Additionally, the Prison
Litigation Reform Act requires that a preliminary injunction
be “narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to
correct the harm . . ., ” and “be the least
intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” 18
U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
Plaintiff fails to clear the first hurdle; he has not
established a “greater than negligible”
likelihood of success on the merits for his deliberate
indifference claim. See, AM General Corp. v.
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 311 F.3d 796, 804 (7th Cir.
2002). Plaintiff complains of persistent pain in his left
side, prostatitis, and redness and swelling in his hands and
feet. He alleged in his Motion filed at the outset of this
case that he had been denied access to a specialist and
requested that he be sent to an outside specialist who could
treat his prostatitis and monitor his condition. At this
point however, Plaintiff has been seen by a specialist, Dr.
Rajamahanty and has been seen by prison medical professionals
numerous times throughout 2018 and 2019 for both conditions.
Dr. Rajamahanty ultimately diagnosed Plaintiff with recurrent
prostatitis, prescribed additional medications, and has
continued to follow-up with Plaintiff since April 2019. While
not deciding the merits of Plaintiff's claims at this
juncture, given this evidence, the Court cannot conclude that
Plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of success on his
deliberate indifference claim regarding these conditions.
same is true for the burning and swelling in his
Plaintiff's hands and feet. Plaintiff has seen healthcare
unit staff numerous times. He was diagnosed with
Erythromelalgia, provided with medication, and scheduled for
follow-up. There is no evidence to suggest that Defendants
are continuing with an ineffective course of treatment as
they are trying different medications to treat his condition.
See Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 655 (7th Cir.
2005) (finding ...