United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DOC. #10]
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, JUIDGE
9, 2017, Plaintiff Robert Langford filed this pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Langford is
a Michigan state prisoner who alleges Defendants denied him
adequate medical treatment for an ingrown toenail for over 10
months. On August 17, 2017, Langford filed a Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to
“ensure that he receives proper medical care.”
Langford alleges that he first requested medical care for his
ingrown toenail on September 16, 2016. Defendant Muzirman
Prima, a physician's assistant, advised him that he
should have his toenail removed on October 14, 2016.
According to the Complaint, Prima told Langford that she had
no experience in removing toenails, so he requested that an
experienced physician perform the removal instead. The
Complaint lists several medical appointments pertaining to
the toenail removal that Langford claims were either
cancelled or delayed.
alleges that he filed a Step I grievance regarding his
medical care on September 30, 2016, followed by a Step II
grievance appeal on October 26, 2016. The Step II grievance
appeal indicated that although Prima offered to remove his
toenail, he wanted a physician to do it because “she
said she did not perform toenail removals...and had no
experience in doing so.” Langford claims that he filed
a Step III grievance appeal regarding the same issue on
October 29, 2016. He says he got no response to it. In
addition, Langford alleges that he was written up for
misconduct in retaliation for not letting Prima perform any
procedures on his ingrown toenail on January 25, 2017.
Standard of Review
relief is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only
if the movant carries the burden of proving that the
circumstances clearly demand it. Overstreet v.
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 305 F.3d 566,
573 (6th Cir. 2002). The proof required to obtain a
preliminary injunction is much more stringent than the proof
required to survive a summary judgment motion. Leary v.
Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 739 (6th Cir. 2000).
deciding a motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order, a court must consider: (1) whether the
movant shows a strong likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury
without the injunction; (3) whether issuance of the
injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4)
whether the public interest would be served by issuance of
the injunction. Overstreet, 305 F.3d at 573. These
factors are not considered prerequisites, but instead should
be balanced against each other. United Food &
Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099 v. Southwest Ohio
Reg'l Transit Auth., 163 F.3d 341, 347 (6th Cir.
1998). No one factor is controlling, but “a finding
that there is simply no likelihood of success on the merits
is usually fatal.” Gonzales v. Nat'l Bd. of
Med. Examiners, 225 F.3d 620, 625 (6th Cir. 2000).
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
says he demonstrates a strong likelihood of success on the
merits because he was denied care for a serious medical need
contrary to a physician's instruction in violation of the
the Eighth Amendment, prison officials may not act with
deliberate indifference to the medical needs of prisoners.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-104, 97 S.Ct.
285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).
Complaint does not indicate that the Defendants intentionally
interfered with medical treatment once prescribed, but
instead alleges that Langford did not want Prima to treat him
because of her lack of experience. Moreover, although the
Complaint alleges several appointment cancellations and
miscommunication between Langford and Defendants, it is
doubtful that Defendants' actions constitute deliberate
indifference. A showing of deliberate indifference generally
requires allegations of acts or omissions that surpass both
negligence and medical malpractice. Estelle, 429
U.S. at 106. The facts alleged do not rise to the level of
the deliberate indifference necessary to sustain a claim
under the Eighth Amendment.
fails to make a strong showing that his claim would likely
succeed on the merits.