Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00921-SLR Document 70 Filed O1/25/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
VURNIS L. GILLIS, )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civ. N0. O4-921-KAJ
JUDGE CHARLES H. TOLIVER, g
et al., )
)
Defendant(s). )
MEMORANDUM ORDER A
Plaintiff, Vurnis L. Gillis, ("GilIis") is a pro se Iitigant incarcerated at the Delaware
Correctional Center (DCC), in Smyrna, Delaware. Gillis moves the court for a
temporary restraining order (D.l. 22) to preclude the defendants from forcing him to take
psychotropic medications.
Gillis’ bases for injunctive relief are that the psychotropic medications put him in
imminent danger of serious physical injury, that the medications are being wrongly used
for disciplinary purposes, and that he has not demonstrated a proclivity for antisocial,
criminal or violent conduct.
When considering a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he is (1) 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 defendants; and, (4) granting the injunction is in the public
I interest. Maldonado v. Houstoun, 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 Chems. Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359

Case 1:04-cv-00921-SLR Document 70 Filed 01/25/2006 Page 2 of 3
(Bd Cir. 1980)(quoting Holiday inns of/tm., 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." Sl Handling
Sys., inc. v. Heisiey, 753 F.2d 1244, 1264 (3d Cir. 1985).
The court agrees that the allegations made by Gillis are serious. The state
defendants, however, have moved to dismiss GiIlis’s complaint (D.I. 67, 68, 69), and, in
doing so, they have submitted several exhibits, including medical records and reports. A
review of those exhibits shows that in 1999 the state court ordered that Gillis be
evaluated and treated at the Delaware Psychiatric Center for his mental illness. Upon
receiving maximum benefit from the evaluation and treatment, he was ordered returned
to the custody of the Department of Correction. The order requires Gillis to take
medications and/or treatment as directed by the Forensic Evaluation team.
A medical report indicates that as of 2002 Gillis had a significant history of
mental illness, diagnosed with severe, persistent and pervasive signs and symptoms of
paranoid schizophrenia. A psychiatric evacuation from 2002 indicates that Gillis was
"well known to be non—compliant" with his psychotropic medications, a concern
inasmuch as he is potentially a danger to himself and others "if medications are not set
correctIy". Additionally, Gillis has chronic suicidal ideations and, on one occasion, was
almost successful in a suicide attempt. Finally, the records indicate that during his
incarceration Gillis has had a history of violent incidents.
Given the exhibits submitted to the court, Gillis has not demonstrated the
likelihood of success on the merits. Notably, Gillis merely alleges that the medications
at issue place him in imminent danger of serious physical injury, yet the medical records
2

Case 1:04-cv-00921-SLR Document 70 Filed 01/25/2006 Page 3 of 3
and reports support an opposite conclusion. Otherthan his allegations, Gillis provides
nothing to the court to demonstrate irreparable harm.
Gillis has neither demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits, nor has
he demonstrated irreparable harm to justify the issuance of a temporary restraining
order. Therefore, the motion for a temporary restraining order is (D.l. 22) is DENIED.
U£|T§é STATE? D@%T%ICT JUDGE \
January 25, 2006
Wilmington, Delaware
3