Opinion
Civil No. 03-1051 (JRT/RLE)
September 24, 2003
Donald James Monaco, Duluth, MN, Plaintiff, pro se
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Donald James Monaco, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota ("FPC-Duluth"), brings this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, plaintiff alleges violation of his civil rights in that he is being denied pain medication of sufficient strength to treat his migraine headaches and is being harassed by Bureau of Prisons personnel due to his complaints about the situation.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson, recommending that the Court deny plaintiffs motions for injunctive relief ordering that he be given stronger medication and that the record of the case be sealed. The Court has conducted a de novo review of plaintiffs objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and D. Minn. L.R. 72.1(c)(2). Because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he will suffer immediate irreparable injury unless the injunctive relief issues, the Court concludes that plaintiffs motions must be denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff asserts that he has suffered from severe chronic migraine headaches for much of his life, and the condition has been aggravated by the stressful conditions of his incarceration. He maintains that prior to his incarceration his headaches were treated with injections of Demerol and that while incarcerated at FCI-Terminal Island his headaches were treated with Tylenol-Codeine pain medication. Plaintiff states that personnel at FCI-Waseca and now at FPC-Duluth have refused to treat his headaches with medications comparable in strength to either Demerol or Tylenol-Codeine and have failed to grant him "lay in" passes to enable him to recover from headaches. Plaintiff asserts that these failures have resulted in "irreparable harm and injuries that have already negatively resulted in [his] physical and psychological well being" and will continue to "result in further aggravating physical as well as psychological medical problems and unnecessary suffering of [his] person."
Plaintiff states that he attempted to address this claim by complaining about the situation to FPC-Duluth personnel. He claims that rather than solve the problem, personnel "verbally abused, harassed, retaliated and discriminated against [him] as well as improperly framed-up for incident reports and a personal threat to be shipped out to a `higher security institution'".
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that his motion for injunctive relief seeking stronger medication be denied. He claims that he has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that immediate and irreparable injury will result if injunctive relief is not granted. In his objections plaintiff also continues to request injunctive relief protecting him from harassment or abuse by prison officials. The Magistrate Judge recommended that such relief be denied.
STANDARD
Rule 65 permits a court to grant injunctive relief in the form of either a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65. The Court may only grant a temporary restraining order upon a clear showing, based on specific facts, by the moving party that: (1) immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition and (2) the court is advised what, if any, measures have been taken to give notice to the opposing party and why notice should not be required. Id. In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the Court considers: (1) whether there will be irreparable injury to the movant, (2) the balance between the injury and the harm that the preliminary injunction will cause to the other parties weighs in favor of the movant, (3) whether the movant has a high probability of success on the merits, and (4) whether the public interest weighs in favor of the movant. Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc)). In either situation, failure to demonstrate irreparable injury is sufficient grounds for the Court to deny the injunction. Id.
Plaintiff provided, along with his objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, an affidavit in support of his motion. In his affidavit, plaintiff states that he suffers from severe chronic migraine headaches, that the staff, including the doctor, at FPC-Duluth have refused to prescribe adequate pain medication and rest time despite previous treatment with stronger medications at other facilities. He also states that he is suffering irreparable physical and psychological injury as a result. These statements are also included in his complaint. Plaintiff has not provided any new information demonstrating what physical or psychological injuries are resulting from the alleged denial of stronger pain medications. Further, plaintiff has not demonstrated the irreparable nature of his injuries or that such irreparable harm will occur in the immediate future despite the fact that it has not occurred during the previous three years when plaintiff was not receiving the stronger medications. While migraine headaches are certainly painful, they are not usually irreparably debilitating. Plaintiff has not met his burden to demonstrate otherwise, and his motion for injunctive relief is accordingly denied.
In his affidavit plaintiff also asserts that in response to his complaints about his medical care and other situations in the prison he has been harassed and threatened by prison officials. He expresses fear of further retaliation for having filed this suit. However, plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his claims, other than his own statements, many of which have been refuted by prison officials. Without more, plaintiff cannot demonstrate that immediate irreparable injury will result and his motion is therefore denied.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, all the records, files, and proceedings herein, the Court OVERRULES plaintiffs objection [Docket No. 25] and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 24]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief [Docket No. 2] is DENIED.
2. Plaintiffs motion to seal and request for restraining order or injunctive relief [Docket No. 11] is DENIED.