Williams v. Correctional Medical Services ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-3227
    ___________
    David Williams,                        *
    *
    Appellant,                *
    *
    v.                              * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Correctional Medical Services; Paul    * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Torrez, CMS Regional Administrator; *
    Arthur Culpepper, CMS Ombudsman; *            [UNPUBLISHED]
    Patricia Kelly, Dr.; Connie Hubbard,   *
    A.N.P., Varner Super Max, ADC; Kay *
    Brodnax, Infirmary Manager; Laura      *
    McCarty, CMS Grievance Responder, *
    Varner Unit, ADC; Larry Norris,        *
    Director, Arkansas Department of       *
    Correction; Max Mobley, ADC Deputy *
    Director,                              *
    *
    Appellees.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: February 7, 2006
    Filed: February 15, 2006
    ___________
    Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In this interlocutory appeal, Arkansas inmate David Williams challenges the
    district court’s1 order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. Following
    careful review of the record, including consideration of the factors discussed in
    Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 
    640 F.2d 109
    , 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we
    agree with the district court that Williams did not meet his burden of establishing a
    preliminary injunction should issue with regard to his claims concerning Hepatitis C
    testing and treatment. See Manion v. Nagin, 
    255 F.3d 535
    , 538 (8th Cir. 2001) (“A
    district court has broad discretion when ruling on requests for preliminary injunctions,
    and [court of appeals] will reverse only for clearly erroneous factual determinations,
    an error of law, or abuse of discretion.”); Dataphase Sys., 
    Inc., 640 F.2d at 113
    (to
    determine whether injunctive relief is warranted, court must balance threat of
    irreparable harm to movant, harm to nonmoving party should injunction issue,
    likelihood of success on merits, and public interest). Williams has no standing here
    to seek injunctive relief on behalf of other inmates. See Meis v. Gunter, 
    906 F.2d 364
    ,
    366-68 (8th Cir. 1990). In addition, Williams did not assert or show that he was
    personally under a threat of irreparable harm necessitating the injunctive relief he
    sought, nor did he establish a likelihood of success on the merits. See generally
    Bender v. Regier, 
    385 F.3d 1133
    , 1135 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing Hepatitis C).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
    the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
    Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District
    of Arkansas.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-3227

Judges: Riley, Magill, Gruender

Filed Date: 2/15/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024