United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon pro se plaintiff
Brandon Nicholas Barnett's motions for injunctive relief,
for leave to add exhibits to his complaint, and for
appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's request to add
complaint exhibits will be granted. However, for the reasons
discussed below, plaintiff's second requests for
injunctive relief and appointment of counsel will be denied.
an inmate at Southeast Correctional Center
(“SECC”), filed this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights against
ten defendants associated with SECC. Plaintiff asserted
multiple claims relating to his health problems of body
weight deterioration, stomach ulcers, and kidney disease.
Upon initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the
Court directed the Clerk of Court to issue process upon
plaintiff's complaint regarding allegations of deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs as to three
defendants: nurse practitioner Nina Hill, kidney specialist
Dr. Winkelmeyer, and director of nursing Roxanne Anderson.
All other claims and defendants were dismissed.
Plaintiff's first motion for appointment of counsel was
also denied at that time. See ECF No. 8.
March 25, 2019, plaintiff filed his first motion for
injunction and temporary restraining order relating to his
allegations of delay in medical treatment. ECF No. 18.
Plaintiff argued that defendant Hill disregarded a
recommendation from kidney disease specialist defendant Dr.
Winkelmeyer for plaintiff to have an endoscopy performed and
for him to see a urologist.
Court denied plaintiff's request for a temporary
restraining order, finding that plaintiff failed to
demonstrate that he was likely to suffer an immediate and
irreparable injury if immediate relief was not granted. ECF
No. 20. However, the Court did order an expedited response
from defendants regarding plaintiff's arguments for
preliminary injunctive relief. Defendants denied that Dr.
Winkelmeyer had referred plaintiff to a urologist, submitting
medical records in support. Defendant Hill responded that Dr.
Winkelmeyer recommended the upper GI endoscopy based on
plaintiff's unsubstantiated reports of blood in his
vomit, urine, and stool, but that a urinalysis indicated no
blood in plaintiff's urine and that plaintiff had refused
to provide a stool sample to confirm the presence of blood in
his stool. Without any medical evidence of blood in his urine
or stool, defendants argued that the endoscopy was not a
medical necessity. On May 1, 2019, the Court denied
plaintiff's motion first for injunctive relief, finding
that it was reasonable for defendant Hill to not request an
endoscopy without medical evidence of blood in
plaintiff's urine or stool. See ECF No. 37 at 5.
31, 2019, plaintiff filed a second motion for injunctive
relief relating to medical care, and a motion for leave to
introduce exhibits to his complaint. On June 17, 2019,
plaintiff filed a second motion for appointment of counsel.
These motions are now before the Court.
for Injunctive Relief
plaintiff's second motion for injunctive relief he again
requests that the Court order defendants give him an upper GI
endoscopy in order to ascertain what is causing the blood in
his stool. According to plaintiff, he had blood in
his stool for seven days of the ten-day period from May 14 to
May 24, 2019. He reports that he provided SECC “nurse
Mike” with a stool sample, that he self-declared
multiple medical emergencies regarding the blood in his
stool, and that multiple SECC correctional officers witnessed
the blood in his stool. Plaintiff states that he was informed
by a SECC nurse (who is not a defendant here) that
“medical can't do anything about blood in
stool.” ECF No. 39 at 2. Plaintiff claims a history of
hematochezia and asserts that without proper testing
his health will continue to deteriorate.
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “Whether a
preliminary injunction should issue involves consideration of
(1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the
state of the balance between this harm and the injury that
granting the injunction will inflict on other parties
litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the
merits; and (4) the public interest.” Dataphase
Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th
Cir. 1981). “In balancing the equities no single factor
is determinative.” Id. at 113. The relevant
inquiry is “whether the balance of equities so favors
the movant that justice requires the court to intervene to
preserve the status quo until the merits are
request for injunctive relief in the prison context
“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) (quoting Rogers v. Scurr,
676 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982)). The burden of proving
that a preliminary injunction should be issued rests ...