United States District Court, D. Maine
NICHOLAS A. GLADU, Plaintiff,
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al., Defendants
ORDER RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge
action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff
Nicholas Gladu, an inmate at the Maine Correctional Center,
alleges that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference
toward Plaintiff's serious medical condition.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs motion for temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 370.)
Through his motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to order
Defendants to provide appropriate care and treatment for a
certain medical condition, which care and treatment should
include a referral to a specialist.
a review of the parties' written arguments and the
record, I recommend the Court deny the motion.
obtain injunctive relief,  Plaintiff must show (1) a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a significant
potential for irreparable harm if the injunction is withheld,
(3) a favorable balance of hardships,  and (4) a fit (or
lack of friction) between the injunction and the public
interest. Nieves-Marquez v. Puerto Rico,
353 F.3d 108, 120 (1st Cir. 2003); Hoffman v. Sec'y
of State of Me., 574 F.Supp.2d 179, 186 (D. Me. 2008).
“The sine qua non of this four-part inquiry is
likelihood of success on the merits; if the moving party
cannot demonstrate that he is likely to succeed in his quest,
the remaining factors become matters of idle
curiosity.” New Comm Wireless Servs., Inc. v.
SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002).
requests both a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a
preliminary injunction. Generally, the distinction between
the two forms of injunctive relief is that the former can be
awarded without notice to the other party and an opportunity
to be heard. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists &
Aerospace Workers v. Verso Paper Corp., 80 F.Supp.3d
247, 278 (D. Me. 2015). A temporary restraining order,
therefore, is an even more exceptional remedy than a
preliminary injunction, which is itself “an
extraordinary and drastic remedy that is never awarded as of
right.” Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med.
News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011)
(quoting Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689 - 90
(2008)). By rule, a temporary restraining order requires a
clear showing “that immediate and irreparable injury,
loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse
party can be heard in opposition.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
of whether notice is provided, “[t]he dramatic and
drastic power of injunctive force may be unleashed only
against conditions generating a presently existing actual
threat; it may not be used simply to eliminate a possibility
of a remote future injury, or a future invasion of rights, be
those rights protected by statute or by the common
law.” Holiday Inns of Am., Inc. v. B & B
Corp., 409 F.2d 614, 618 (3d Cir. 1969). Moreover,
“judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing
with the complex and intractable problems of prison
administration.” Rogers v. Scurr, 676 F.2d
1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982).
his motion, Plaintiff maintains injunctive relief is
necessary because Defendants have failed to treat properly a
number of symptoms, including a condition he describes as a
“skull anomaly” that could suggest a “skull
base tumor.” (Plaintiff's Declaration at 3, ECF No.
370-1.) To be entitled to injunctive relief, Plaintiff must
first establish that he is likely to prevail on his
underlying claim. Here, Plaintiff contends that Defendants
have acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
Process Clause imposes on the states the “substantive
obligation” not to treat prisoners in their care in a
manner that reflects “deliberate indifference”
toward “a substantial risk of serious harm to health,
” Coscia v. Town of Pembroke, 659 F.3d 37, 39
(1st Cir. 2011), or “serious medical needs, ”
Feeney v. Corr. Med. Servs., 464 F.3d 158, 161 (1st
Cir. 2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
105 - 106 (1976)). A deliberate indifference claim must
satisfy both an objective and a subjective standard.
Leavitt v. Corr. Med. Servs., 645 F.3d 484, 497 (1st
objective standard evaluates the seriousness of the risk of
harm to one's health. For a medical condition to be
objectively “serious, ” there must be “a
sufficiently substantial ‘risk of serious damage to
[the inmate's] future health.'” Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 843 (1994) (quoting Helling
v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993)). A medical need is
serious if it has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating
treatment, or is so obvious that even a lay person would
recognize a need for medical intervention. Leavitt,
645 F.3d at 497; Gaudreault v. Mun. of Salem, 923
F.2d 203, 208 (1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500
U.S. 956 (1991).
subjective standard concerns the culpability of the
defendant. There must be evidence that a particular defendant
possessed a culpable state of mind amounting to
“deliberate indifference to an inmate's health or
safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Deliberate indifference is akin to
criminal recklessness, “requiring actual knowledge of
impending harm, easily preventable.” Feeney,
464 F.3d at 162 (quoting Watson v. Caton, 984 F.2d
537, 540 (1st Cir. 1993)). The focus of the deliberate
indifference analysis “is on what the jailers knew and
what they did in response.” Burrell v. Hampshire
Cnty., 307 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2002).
record establishes that as recently as April 22, 2017, after
examining Plaintiff in the emergency department at Maine
Medical Center, which examination included a neurological
exam and an assessment of Plaintiff's complaint about his
skull, a physician determined that Plaintiff did not suffer
from a serious head-related condition and that no imaging of
Plaintiff's head was necessary. (ECF No. 388-1.) Given
this record, Plaintiff has not established he is likely to
prevail on his deliberate indifference claim against
Defendants. Similarly, given the physician's assessment,
Plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate that he will suffer
irreparable harm or that he will suffer any hardship if an
injunction is not issued. Finally, without any record
evidence to support his deliberate indifference claim, the
balance between an injunction and the public interest
militates against an injunction particularly given ...