CONNELL
v.
CENTURION MEDICAL HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of persuasion for the four prerequisites of injunctive relief.
Plaintiff, an inmate, sought a preliminary injunction or TRO due to alleged inadequate medical care for an ear injury sustained in 2019. He claims he …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Balance Of Harms cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Request for Emergency Relief” (Doc. 9). He requests that the Court issue a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order because of ongoing denial of adequate medical care for a 2019 ear injury. Plaintiff asserts that in July 2019, while housed at Dade Correctional Institution, he was punched in the left ear, resulting in a “ruptured left tympanic membrane perforation . . . .” Id. at 2. He contends that he did not receive adequate medical care at Dade C.I. and was transferred to Florida State Prison in September 2019, where he continues to receive inadequate medical treatment. A temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction is appropriate where the movant shows that: (a) there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
(b) the TRO or preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury1;
(c) the threatened injury outweighs the harm that the TRO or preliminary injunction would cause to the non- movant; and
(d) the TRO or preliminary injunction would not be a[d]verse to the public interest.
Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 275 F. 3d 1032, 1034-35 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (citation and footnote omitted); see Keister v. Bell, 879 F. 3d 1282, 1287-88 (11th Cir. 2018). Such injunctive relief “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that should not be granted unless the movant clearly carries [his] burden of persuasion on each of these prerequisites.” GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 788 F. 3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotations and citation omitted). Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of persuasion as to the four prerequisites for injunctive relief. Thus, he is not entitled to the relief he requests. Plaintiff raises the same claims in his Complaint pending before the Court. See Doc. 1. The Court will substantively address the claims when it
DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 4th day of April, 2022.
Zh. OW - KM) Armas
United States District Judge
Jax-7
c: Timothy Alan Connell, #111890
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ned L. Siegel v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000)
- Ne. Fla. Chapter OF The Ass'n OF Gen. Contractors OF Am. v. City OF Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir. 1990)
- Parker v. The State Bd. OF Pardons & Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032 (11th Cir. 2001)
- GEORGIACARRY.ORG, Inc. v. The U.S. Army Corps OF Eng'rs, 788 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2015)