Strickland v. Wang
| Decision Date | 14 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 7:11cv00246 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
| Parties | HAROLD E. STRICKLAND, Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR HENREY WANG, et al., Defendants. |
By: Hon. Samuel G. Wilson
Plaintiff Harold E. Strickland brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various correctional and medical employees at Danville City Jail and Mecklenburg Correctional Center ("MKCC"). Strickland alleges defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need because he has not received adequate medical treatment related to his Crohn's disease. The case is before the court on Strickland's motion for a preliminary injunction ordering that a doctor at Duke University evaluate and provide a treatment plan for his Crohn's disease and that the Virginia Department of Corrections follow such treatment plan, as well as any special diets recommended by the Duke University doctor. Strickland claims that the medications currently prescribed are not effective and that he needs certain medical tests, as well as a special diet. Strickland states that defendants are aware of his Crohn's disease, but have failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment, including suitable medications and a special diet.
By order entered June 2, 2011, the court ordered the defendants to file a response, and the defendants filed an affidavit from G. Harris, R.N.C.B., director of nursing at MKCC. Nurse Harris avers that Strickland has been seen and treated several times by the treating physician atMKCC and other medical staff since his arrival at the facility on April 29, 2011. Nurse Harris further states that Strickland has received both treatment and medication for his Crohn's disease while incarcerated at MKCC. Plaintiff has been prescribed Asacol for his Crohn's disease, as well as Colace and Prilosec to provide relief from symptoms of Crohn's. However, the treating physician at MKCC has not ordered a special diet.
A district court should award preliminary injunctive relief sparingly and only when the party seeking relief has demonstrated actual, imminent, irreparable harm, as well as a likelihood of success on the merits. Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton, 926 F.2d 353, 360 (4th Cir. 1991); Manning v. Hunt, 119 F.3d 254, 263 (4th Cir. 1997); Direx Israel Ltd. v. Breakthrough Medical Group, 952 F.2d 802, 812 (4th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). A preliminary injunction temporarily affords an extraordinary remedy prior to trial that can be granted permanently after trial, and the party seeking the preliminary injunction must demonstrate: (1) by a "clear showing," that he is likely to succeed on the merits at trial; (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council. Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). 1 The plaintiff must show that the irreparable harm he faces in the absence of relief is "neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent." Direx Israel. Ltd., 952 F.2d at 812. Without a showing that plaintiff will suffer imminent, irreparable harm, the court cannot grant interlocutory injunctive relief. Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc., 926 F.2d at 360.
Strickland cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. For Strickland to prevail in his 1983 claim, he must prove that his constitutional rights were violated. To state a constitutional claim regarding medical care, a prisoner must show deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. In order to demonstrate deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, Strickland must show that the defendants knew of and disregarded an objectively serious medical need or risk of harm. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Rish v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 1092, 1096 (4th Cir. 1997). A disagreement between an inmate and medical personnel over diagnosis or course of treatment is not a cognizable constitutional claim under the Eighth Amendment. Wright v....
To continue reading
Request your trial