Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-02159-MSK-CBS.
May 15, 2008
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's "Emergency Motion for Evidentiary Hearing/T.R.O. Preliminary Injunction" (#10), and a motion for an expedited determination (#14). The Defendants have not filed timely responses to either motion. Having considered the same, the Court
The Plaintiff appears pro se. Therefore, the Court has construed all of his filings liberally in accordance with Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
FINDS and CONCLUDES that:
In his motions, the Plaintiff complains that he suffers from a severe form of scarring cystic acne, and he asks the Court to order the Defendants to provide him with medication to treat it. He specifically requests a prescription for 10% benzoyl peroxide gel.
Recent filings in the case by both the Plaintiff ( see #34) and the Defendants ( see #29) show that the facts which are material to the Plaintiff's motions are undisputed, therefore no hearing is required. The Plaintiff, indeed, suffers from severe cystic acne with scarring and was prescribed 10% benzoyl peroxide on March 6, 2008. The doctor also prescribed him refills of this medication which will last until September 2008. On February 4, 2008, he was approved for a consultation with a dermatologist and placed on a list to be scheduled for an appointment.
The recent filings are the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Neither of those motions is fully briefed, therefore the Court does not rule on them at this juncture.
As is apparent from the undisputed facts, the Plaintiff's current course of treatment will end in September 2008. At this juncture, the Court declines to order continued prescription of the benzoyl peroxide after September 2008, because this would require the Court to speculate as to whether the current course of treatment will be the medically required course of treatment at that point in time. However, to assure that appropriate and timely treatment is received, the Court orders that an appointment with a dermatologist occur prior to the expiration of the current prescription.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Plaintiff's "Emergency Motion for Evidentiary Hearing/T.R.O. Preliminary Injunction" (#10) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and his motion for an expedited determination (#14) is DENIED.