United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
(Doc. 7). The Court has jurisdiction in this matter
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Oral argument is not
required. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs motion is
Ducksworth ("Plaintiff') alleges that Hal Macmurdo,
a physician at the Dixon Correctional Institute
("Defendant"), has unlawfully discontinued
Plaintiffs weekly visits to "UMC" for speech and
physical therapy services for "financial reasons."
(Doc. 7 at ¶¶ 1,2,3). Plaintiff further alleges
that he has submitted four requests for treatment which have
been ignored by Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 4).
Plaintiff asserts that his health continues to decline, and
that his medical needs are now urgent. (Id. at
¶ 5). Plaintiff avers that there is imminent risk that
his current medical condition will be permanent, and that
preventative and rehabilitory treatment is not available to
Plaintiff at Dixon Correctional Institute. (Id. at
¶¶ 6,7). Plaintiff claims that Defendant is
responsible for scheduling medical appointments at facilities
outside of the prison, but has not exercised that authority
to address Plaintiffs medical needs. (Id. at ¶
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic
remedy; it is never awarded as of right." Munaf v.
Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (internal citations
and quotations omitted). See also Allied Mktg.
Grp.t Inc. v. CDL Mktg., Inc., 878 F.2d 806,
809 (5th Cir. 1989) Specifically, a Plaintiff must establish:
(1) a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits; (2)
a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction
is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs any harm
that will result to the non-movant if the injunction is
granted; and (4) the injunction will not disserve the public
interest. See Ridgely v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt.
Agency, 512 F.3d 727, 734 (5th Cir. 2008).;
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line
Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985) ("[t]he
decision to grant a request for preliminary injunction is to
be treated as the exception rather than the rule"). The
decision whether to grant or deny a request for a preliminary
injunction is within the sound discretion of the Court.
See Allied Mlttg. Grp., Inc., 878 F.2d at 809. At
all times, the burden of persuasion remains with Plaintiff as
to each of the four elements. If a plaintiff fails to meet
his burden regarding any of the necessary elements, the Court
need not address the other elements necessary for granting a
preliminary injunction. See Roho, Inc. v. Marquis,
902 F.2d 356, 261 (5th Cir. 1990) (declining to address the
remaining elements necessary to obtain a preliminary
injunction after finding that the plaintiff failed to show a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits).
Rule of Civil Procedure 5 sets forth the service requirements
for any motion filed in federal court. Specifically, unless
the Rules state otherwise, a written motion, except for those
that may be heard ex parte, must be served on every
party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(D). A certificate of service
is also required to be included with any filings not
submitted to the Court by way of electronic filing. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5(d)(1)(B).
Civ. P. 65 provides:
Court may issue a temporary restraining order without written
or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint
clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can
be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any
efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it ...