United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff
Brandon Nicholas Barnett for a preliminary injunction.
(Docket No. 13). For the reasons discussed below, the motion
must be denied.
is an inmate at the Southeast Correctional Center (SECC) in
Charleston, Missouri. On January 16, 2019, he filed a pro se
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
alleged that while at SECC his testicular pain and shrinkage
had been treated with deliberate indifference.
9, 2019, the Court dismissed plaintiffs official capacity
claims, as well as the individual capacity claims against
defendants Molly Leija, Philip Tippen, Larry Graham, Jason
Lewis, Paula Reed, Bruce Hanebrink, Shaun Butts, and Paula
Martin. (Docket No. 11). However, the Court directed the
Clerk of Court to issue process on defendants Nina Hill and
Megan Crowe in their individual capacities as to plaintiffs
claims of deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
(Docket No. 9). Defendants Hill and Crowe have not yet
filed the instant motion for preliminary injunction on May
20, 2019. (Docket No. 13).
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
first page of his motion, plaintiff states that he has been
complaining about "severe testicle pain and
shrinkage" for the past six months. (Docket No. 13 at
1). He alleges that defendant Nina Hill, who examined him,
"lied" when she stated that both his testicles were
the same size. He further states that after receiving his lab
results, defendant Hill advised him that "she did not
know the cause of [his] testicle pain and shrinkage."
When plaintiff asked defendant Hill to refer him to a
urologist, he alleges that he received "no
results." Plaintiff claims that the fact that he is
having constant shrinkage proves he is in imminent danger and
that if he is not sent to a urologist he will suffer
irreparable harm including possible loss of organ
second and third pages of plaintiff s current motion are from
a motion for preliminary injunction that he filed in a
separate case, Barnett v. Hill, No. 1:18-cv-238-AGF
(E.D. Mo. April 15, 2019). The only alteration made to the
motion consists of the old case number being scratched out
and replaced with the instant case number. In these two
pages, plaintiff claims that he has been denied medical care
for his stomach ulcers and kidney issues. (Docket No. 13 at
2-3). He seeks an order requiring him to be seen by a
urologist. (Docket No. 13 at 3).
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 557 U.S. 7, 27 (2008). In determining
whether to grant a preliminary injunction, a district court
applies "a flexible consideration of (1) the threat of
irreparable harm to the moving party; (2) balancing this harm
with any injury an injunction would inflict on other
interested parties; (3) the probability that the moving party
would succeed on the merits; and (4) the effect on the public
interest." St. Louis Effort for AIDS v. Huff,
782 F.3d 1016, 1021 (8th Cir. 2015). See also
Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113
(8th Cir. 1981).
prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always
be viewed with great caution because "judicial restraint
is especially called for in dealing with the complex and
intractable problems of prison administration." Goff
v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995).
For an injunction to issue, "a right must be
violated" and the court must determine whether "a
cognizable danger of future violation exists and that danger
must be more than a mere possibility." Id. at
521. The burden of proving that a preliminary injunction
should be issued rests with the party seeking injunctive
relief. Mgmt. Registry, Inc. v. A.W. Cos., Inc., 920
F.3d 1181, 1183 (8th Cir. 2019).
has not met his burden of demonstrating that a preliminary
injunction should be issued. First, he has not made a showing
of irreparable harm. While plaintiff alleges that he is
suffering from testicular pain and shrinkage, his claims that
this condition puts him in imminent danger of irreparable
harm are conclusory and contain no factual support. Instead,
the bulk of his motion is spent detailing medical complaints
that are not at issue here, including his stomach ulcers and
kidney failure. Those allegations are part of a separate
case, in which plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction
was denied. Assertions that do not appear in the
complaint cannot form the basis for a preliminary injunction.
See Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471
(8th Cir. 1994). Second, granting plaintiffs
motion would be harmful to the nonmoving party, because it
touches on the merits of the case before defendants have had
an opportunity to respond. Finally, the fact that plaintiffs
case entails issues of prison administration militates
against the granting of an injunction. Therefore, plaintiffs
motion must be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
for a preliminary ...