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

Case 1 :04-cv-01417-GIVIS Document 75 Filed O2/25/2008 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RICHARD C. HUNT, )
Plaintiff, )
v. j Civ. Action No. 04-1417-**}NlPT
FIRST CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL j G-1/I 5
SERVICES, STAN TAYLOR, DEPUTY )
WARDEN RAPHAEL WILLIAMS, )
and BRIAN EMIG, )
Defendants. j
MEMORANDUM ORDER
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiff, Richard C. Hunt ("Hunt"), who proceeds pro se, filed a motion seeking
injunctive relief for immediate medical treatment. (D.I. 61.) More particularly, he asks to be
taken to the nearest hospital for medical care for treatment of recurring problems with his jaw.
The defendant, First Correctional Medical ("FCM"), and the State defendants, Stan Taylor,
Raphael Williams, and Brian Emig (collectively "State defendants"), oppose the motion on the
basis that it was filed in error and, alternatively, that Hunt has not met the requisites for
injunctive relief (D.I. 64, 65.)
II. STANDARD
When considering a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction,
plaintiff must demonstrate that: (I) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in
irreparable harm; (3) granting the injunction will not result in irreparable harm to the
defendant(s); and (4) granting the injunction is in the public interest. Maldonado v. Houstoun,

Case 1:04-cv—O1417-G|\/IS Document 75 Filed O2/25/2008 Page 2 of 3
157 F.3d 179, 184 (3d Cir. 1997). "[A]n injunction 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 Chcms. Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980)(quoting Holiday Inns of/lm., 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. Heisley, 753 F .2d 1244, 1264 (3d Cir. 1985).
III. DISCUSSION
All defendants contend that the document filed by plaintiff was mistakenly docketed as a
motion for temporary restraining order. They explain that when Hunt was deposed he indicated
that he had notes regarding his medical treatment, defendants asked for copies of the notes, and
later received copies of the notes as promised by plaintiff. The defendants believe that the tiled
documents were in response to defendants’ requests for the documents. Alternatively, the
defendants ask the court to deny the motion on its merits and contend that plaintiff failed to meet
any ofthe factors required for injunctive relief
It does appear that the documents filed by Hunt were in response to the defendants’
requests for the documents. It also seems that Hunt seeks medical treatment for an injury to his
jaw that occurred in 2004. Nonetheless, the documents submitted to the court indicate that Hunt
has received medical treatment, and continues to receive treatment. Indeed, as recently as
September 10, 2007, he submitted a request for medical care and was referred to a physician.
Given the exhibits submitted to the court and Hunt’s argument, he has not demonstrated
the likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, there is no indication that, at the present time,
Hunt is in danger of suffering irreparable harm. Hunt has neither demonstrated the likelihood of
-2-

Case 1:04-cv—O1417-G|\/IS Document 75 Filed O2/25/2008 Page 3 of 3
success on the merits, nor has he demonstrated irreparable harm to justify the issuance of
immediate injunctive relief.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, and having considered Hunt’s motion for temporary
restraining order and the papers submitted thereto, the motion (D.I. 61) is DENIED.
CHIQEQ ED STATES DISTRICT %DGE
DATED: [`Q; ¢ 6, ZM (
SE
-3-