Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-CV-6119.
March 19, 2004
ORDER
AND NOW, this ____ day of March, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel TRO and Preliminary Injunction (docket no. 31) and Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction (docket no. 29), and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 20) and the responses thereto, and pursuant to the discussion at oral argument, it is ORDERED that:
1. With respect to his allegations of inadequate medical care, Plaintiff's Motions for TRO are DENIED upon the condition that, within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, a full medical evaluation shall be performed upon Plaintiff by an independent physician under contract with the Department of Corrections. If possible within this time limit, this examination shall be performed by Dr. Dennis Iaccarino. Within twenty (20) days of the date this Order, the examining physician shall produce to the Court a report detailing Plaintiff's medical condition, including but not limited to:
A. The current status of his Hepatitis C infection, the treatment he has received at the Department of Corrections, and the adequacy of this treatment to address his needs, independent of any Department of Corrections regulations or policies governing the treatment of Hepatitis C patients;
B. The condition of his shoulder, and assessing what if any special care should be given to that shoulder, including but not limited to whether he should be handcuffed behind his back; and
C. The state of his penile bleeding and what, if any, medical treatment he should receive for it.
2. In all other respects, Plaintiff's Motions are DENIED.
3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
Although the Court does not find that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, and accordingly denies his Motions for a temporary restraining order, his allegations state a claim for retaliatory infringement of Constitutional rights under the liberal pleading standard for pro se litigants. See generally Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). In reaching this decision, the Court makes no findings as to the credibility of any of the testimony before it.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that, by consent of the parties and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), this case is transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
During oral argument on the aforementioned Motions, it became clear that many of the issues in this case can only be resolved by testimony from guards and officials employed at SCI-Huntingdon. Although this Court was able to conduct a limited discussion with some of these individuals by video-conferencing, the parties agree that as the case proceeds, the Middle District would be more convenient for both the parties and these witnesses.