Kennedy v. Potter , 344 F. App'x 987 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    September 25, 2009
    No. 08-10901                      Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Summary Calendar                            Clerk
    MICHAEL PATRICK KENNEDY
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    DR DAVID POTTER; EDDIE C WILLIAMS; JOHN WILSON
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 7:07-CV-0022-0
    Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Kennedy (“Kennedy”), a pro se inmate
    proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s denial of a motion for
    a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Kennedy sustained
    injuries from seven bullet wounds when he was arrested. After complaining
    about a bullet that he claimed was lodged in his spine and pressed on his nerve
    roots, Dr. David Potter (“Potter”), a prison doctor with experience treating
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
    R. 47.5.4.
    No. 08-10901
    gunshot wounds, treated Kennedy. Potter examined and x-rayed Kennedy and,
    after finding the bullet in a pelvic muscle that did not press on nerve roots,
    recommended pain management treatment rather than surgery.                   Potter
    determined that the gunshot injury would not worsen and that the risks of
    surgery outweighed the benefits of removing the bullet fragments. Kennedy
    sued Defendants-Appellees Dr. David Potter, physician’s assistant John Wilson,
    and warden Eddie Williams for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
    under the Eighth Amendment.
    Kennedy then moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
    injunction, seeking to be transferred to the Texas Tech University Health
    Science Center for treatment by a neurosurgeon and orthopedic surgeon. He
    also seeks removal from work assignments that, he claims, have aggravated his
    injury. The magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny the
    motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which the
    district court adopted.    Specifically, the district court held a hearing on
    Kennedy’s request for a temporary restraining order and denied as moot his
    motion for a hearing on his request for a preliminary injunction, motion to
    compel a ruling on the motion for a temporary restraining order, and petition for
    a writ of mandamus. Kennedy then filed this interlocutory appeal of the court’s
    denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
    injunction.
    This court’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals of final decisions of district
    courts and certain interlocutory orders. 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1291
    , 1292; F ED. R. C IV.
    P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 
    337 U.S. 541
    , 545 (1949).
    Federal appellate jurisdiction is typically dependent upon a final decision that
    “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but
    execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 
    324 U.S. 229
    , 233 (1945). The
    district court’s ruling on the temporary restraining order is not a final order and
    2
    No. 08-10901
    does not fall into the class of special interlocutory appeals. Faulder v. Johnson,
    
    178 F.3d 741
    , 742 (5th Cir. 1999); In re Lieb, 
    915 F.2d 180
    , 183 (5th Cir. 1990).
    We next consider whether this appeal meets each of the three
    requirements for the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule. A
    preliminary or interim order is appealable as a collateral order when it:
    (1) “conclusively determine[s] the disputed question,” (2) “resolve[s] an important
    issue completely separate from the merits,” and (3) is “unreviewable on appeal
    from a final judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 
    437 U.S. 463
    , 468 (1978).
    The district court’s dismissal of Kennedy’s motion for a temporary
    restraining order or preliminary injunction to alter his current job assignment
    and a transfer to another facility to be seen by another doctor does not
    “conclusively determine the disputed question”—whether or not Kennedy
    suffered from deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 
    Id.
     The
    district court’s order thus fails to satisfy even the first prong of the test because
    Kennedy may still proceed with his lawsuit.         The appeal of the temporary
    restraining order does not fit into the collateral order exception and, accordingly,
    we do not need to address prongs two or three. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal
    in part for want of jurisdiction under § 1291. In re Lieb, 
    915 F.2d at 183
    .
    In contrast, the order denying a motion for preliminary injunction
    requiring access to medical treatment is immediately appealable under
    § 1292(a)(1). This court reviews a district court’s order denying a motion for
    preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Miss. Power & Light Co. v.
    United Gas Pipe Line Co., 
    760 F.2d 618
    , 621 (5th Cir. 1985). We review findings
    of fact for plain error and conclusions of law de novo. Women’s Med. Ctr. v. Bell,
    
    248 F.3d 411
    , 419 (5th Cir. 2001).
    A litigant must establish the following four requirements to be entitled to
    a preliminary injunction: (1) “a substantial likelihood that plaintiff will prevail
    on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury
    3
    No. 08-10901
    if the injunction is not granted, (3) that the threatened injury to plaintiff
    outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may do to the defendant, and
    (4) that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public
    interest.” Canal Auth. of Fla. v. Callaway, 
    489 F.2d 567
    , 572 (5th Cir. 1974).
    A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy.” 
    Id. at 573
    .
    The party with the burden must “clearly carr[y] the burden of persuasion.” Miss.
    Power & Light Co., 
    760 F.2d at 621
    .
    Turning to the first prong, Kennedy must show a substantial likelihood
    that he can prove that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to
    Kennedy’s medical needs so as to cause “unnecessary or wanton infliction of
    pain.” Estelle v. Gamble, 
    429 U.S. 97
    , 105 (1976) (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 
    428 U.S. 153
    , 173 (1976).     This requires proof that the prison officials were
    subjectively aware of a substantial risk of serious harm and were deliberately
    indifferent to that risk. Hare v. City of Corinth, 
    74 F.3d 633
    , 648-49 (5th Cir.
    1996) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 847 (1994)).           Deliberate
    indifference means that (1) prison officials were “aware of facts from which an
    inference of substantial risk of serious harm could be drawn; (2) the official[s]
    actually drew that inference; and (3) the official[s’] response indicates the
    official[s] subjectively intended that harm occur.” Thompson v. Upshur County,
    
    245 F.3d 447
    , 458-59 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Hare, 
    74 F.3d at 649-50
    ). Deliberate
    indifference is treated as similar to criminal recklessness. Farmer, 
    511 U.S. at 839-40
    . Deliberate indifference cannot be inferred from a negligent response to
    a substantial risk of serious harm. Hare, 
    74 F.3d at 649
    .
    In the context of medical care to prisoners, courts have found that just
    because a prisoner does not agree that the medical care offered is appropriate,
    this is not enough to suffice for a claim of deliberate indifference to serious
    medical needs. Norton v. Dimazana, 
    122 F.3d 286
    , 292 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing
    Young v. Gray, 
    560 F.2d 201
    , 201 (5th Cir. 1977). It is not enough that the
    4
    No. 08-10901
    diagnosis is incorrect. Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 
    239 F.3d 752
    ,
    756 (5th Cir. 2001). The prisoner must instead establish that officials “refused
    to treat him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or
    engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for
    any serious medical needs.” Johnson v. Treen, 
    759 F.2d 1236
    , 1238 (5th Cir.
    1985). Indeed, courts have found that evidence of medical exams, sick calls, and
    diagnoses have been used to rebut a claim of deliberate indifference. See, e.g.,
    Sexton v. Young, No. 07-0088, 
    2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25147
    , at *3-4 (W.D. La.
    Mar. 12, 2007).
    The record establishes that the district court considered Kennedy’s sick
    calls and exams, his continuous medical care for his chronic back pain, and his
    conversations with medical staff. Thus, the record supports the district court’s
    order. The facts alleged do not show that defendants’ responses indicate that
    they subjectively intended to harm him. Kennedy’s disagreement over the next
    steps in his medical treatment—whether or not a neurosurgeon from an outside
    treatment center was necessary—is not sufficient to establish deliberate
    indifference.   Rather, the district court acknowledged the medical staff’s
    consideration of the benefits of pain management treatment over surgery. Thus,
    the first crucial requirement needed to succeed on a temporary injunction has
    not been established. Because Kennedy has not shown a substantial likelihood
    of succeeding on this claim, he is not entitled to a preliminary injunction.
    Accordingly, the district court did not err.
    We DISMISS the appeal of a denial of a temporary restraining order for
    lack of jurisdiction. We AFFIRM the district court’s order denying a preliminary
    injunction for lack of abuse of discretion.
    5