Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Civil Rights — Eighth Amendment — preliminary relief


Civil Rights — Eighth Amendment — preliminary relief


Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit


Civil Rights — Eighth Amendment — preliminary relief

The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order that a prisoner, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs, be transferred to a different doctor’s care.

“[T]he district court failed to supply reasons for denying preliminary injunctive relief. Ordinarily we would remand the case and require the court to supply those reasons. See Books v. Chater, 91 F.3d 972, 978 (7th Cir. 1996); Sims v. Lucas, 9 F.3d 1293, 1294 (7th Cir. 1993); DiLeo v. Ernst & Young, 901 F.3d 624, 626 (7th Cir. 1990). But that step is not necessary here because, even ignoring the lack of advance notice to Dr. Talbot, there is enough in this record to demonstrate that the requested relief — immediate referral to another doctor — is unwarranted. Wheeler’s h. pylori claim provides no basis for a preliminary injunction because the lab results on which he relies refute that claim. Nor has Wheeler presented evidence that could support an immediate referral to treat his keloids. He asks us to rely on the medical records attached to his brief, but those records, which relate to two appointments with the prison’s medical staff, do not help him. The records reflect that Wheeler told the staff that his keloids hurt and ‘periodically ooze[] puss [sic].’ But the staff noted in those records that he showed no ‘obvious discomfort” and observed that his ‘skin integrity is intact’ and his keloids are ‘small.’ Staff also instructed Wheeler to take acetaminophen for pain relief and to return if his symptoms got worse. This evidence, which is all that he supplied, shows neither that Wheeler will experience irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction nor that his deliberate-indifference claim against Dr. Talbot has a reasonable likelihood of success. Because Wheeler does not meet the requirements for preliminary relief, see Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 690 (2008); Stuller, Inc. v. Steak N Shake Enters., 695 F.3d 676, 678 (7th Cir. 2012), the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wheeler’s motion.”


13-3294 Wheeler v. Talbot

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, McCuskey, J., Wood, J.


Should Hollywood and Nashville stay out of politics?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests