Russell Steedley v. James McBride

CLD-287 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 13-1840
___________
RUSSELL STEEDLEY,
Appellant
v.
JAMES MCBRIDE, RMD; CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES;
RICHARD KERNEY, Bureau Chief for Department of Corrections;
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, Inc.
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil No. 1:10-cv-00215)
District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 20, 2013
Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 3, 2013)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Russell Steedley appeals pro se from the District Court’s order denying
Steedley’s motion for preliminary injunction. Because the appeal presents no substantial
question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
I.
In March 2010, Appellant Russell Steedley, a prisoner at the James T. Vaughn
Correctional Center (“JTVCC”) in Delaware, filed a pro se civil rights complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Correctional Medical Services,
Inc. (“CMS”), a private corporation that provided medical services for the Delaware
Department of Corrections (“DOC”) in June 2010, and its acting Regional Medical
Director at JTVCC, James McBride. In his complaint, Steedley asserted that CMS and
McBride had violated his constitutional rights for allegedly failing to adequately test or
otherwise treat two large lumps on Steedley’s body; lumps which he (and several medical
professionals) worried could pose a serious health risk. In May 2010, Steedley amended
his complaint to add Dr. Rivera, a physician for the DOC, and Richard Kerney, the
Bureau Chief for the DOC. In June 2010, the District Court sua sponte dismissed the
complaint as frivolous without leave to amend, and Steedley filed a timely notice of
appeal. This Court upheld the dismissal of Steedley’s complaint, but vacated the District
Court’s judgment in order to allow Steedley to amend his complaint. See C.A. No. 10-
2879. In January 2012, Steedley filed an amended complaint, adding Correct Care
Solutions, LLC (“Correct Care”), which took over the provision of medical services to
the DOC after June 2010, as a defendant.1
In January 2013, Steedley filed a motion for preliminary injunction, 2 seeking an
injunction requiring CMS or its successor to provide medical care related to two lumps
1
Steedley’s amended complaint also removed Dr. Rivera as a named defendant.
2
Service of Steedley’s motion was not effected upon James McBride or Richard Kerney.
2
on his body, specifically that an outside specialist be allowed to examine the lumps. On
March 22, 2013, the District Court entered an order denying Steedley’s motion for
preliminary injunction, finding that Steedley had not demonstrated the likelihood of
success on the merits, or that he was in danger of suffering irreparable harm, as he
continues to receive medical care and monitoring of his condition. Steedley timely
appealed the District Court’s order.
II.
We have appellate jurisdiction to review an order denying a motion for a
preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review a district court’s
ultimate decision to deny a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, but we exercise
plenary review over legal conclusions and review findings of fact for clear error. Miller
v. Mitchell, 598 F.3d 139, 145 (3d Cir. 2010).
III.
The District Court correctly denied Steedley’s motion for preliminary injunction.
As noted by the District Court, preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy”
and “should be granted only in limited circumstances.” Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp.,
369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Winback & Conserve
Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1427 (3d Cir. 1994)). “A party seeking a preliminary
injunction must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that it will suffer
irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that granting preliminary relief will not
result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the public interest favors
such relief.” Id. “The burden lies with the plaintiff to establish every element in its
3
favor, or the grant of a preliminary injunction is inappropriate.” P.C. Yonkers, Inc. v.
Celebrations the Party & Seasonal Superstore, LLC., 428 F.3d 504, 508 (3d Cir. 2005).
Furthermore, because of the intractable problems of prison administration, a request for
injunctive relief in the prison context must be viewed with considerable caution. Goff v.
Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995).
Concerning Steedley’s claims that the Appellees’ actions are constitutional
violations of his civil rights and constitute deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs, we agree with the District Court’s determination that Steedley has failed to
demonstrate the likelihood of success on the merits. When seeking to establish a
constitutional violation relating to medical treatment, a plaintiff must demonstrate
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976). “To act with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is to recklessly
disregard a substantial risk of serious harm.” Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 330 (3d
Cir. 2009). For instance, a plaintiff may make this showing by establishing that the
defendants “intentionally den[ied] or delay[ed] medical care.” Id. (quotation marks
omitted). However, “[w]here a prisoner has received some medical attention and the
dispute is over the adequacy of the treatment, federal courts are generally reluctant to
second guess medical judgments and to constitutionalize claims which sound in state tort
law.” United States ex rel. Walker v. Fayette Cnty., 599 F.2d 573, 575 n.2 (3d Cir. 1979)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
In the instant case, it is clear from the record that Steedley has had the relevant
lumps for most of his life with very little change, that they are likely benign, that Steedley
4
received medical care at JTVCC for his condition, and that he continues to receive
medical care and monitoring. Accordingly, there is nothing to suggest that the
defendants are intentionally denying or delaying medical care. Rather, it appears that
Steedley merely disagrees with their assessment of his medical needs, which does not rise
to the level of deliberate indifference. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 235 (3d Cir.
2004). As a result, Steedley has failed to establish the likelihood of success on the
merits.
As Steedley has the burden to establish every element of the four-part test for
determining whether a preliminary injunction should be granted, Steedley’s failure to
show the likelihood of success on the merits alone establishes that he is not entitled to a
preliminary injunction. See Yonkers, 428 F.3d at 508. Accordingly, this appeal presents
us with no substantial question, and we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
See 3rd Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
5