Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ducksworth v. Macmurdo

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

April 3, 2019

AKANDO DUCKSWORTH
v.
HAL MACMURDO, ET AL.[1]

          RULING AND ORDER

          BRIAN A. JACKSON JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 7)[2]. 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 DENIED.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Akando Ducksworth ("Plaintiff') alleges that Hal Macmurdo, a physician at the Dixon Correctional Institute ("Defendant"), has unlawfully discontinued Plaintiffs weekly visits to "UMC"[3] 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[4] 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 ¶ 8).

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Injunctive Relief

         "A 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).

         B. Service

         Federal 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).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 provides:

         The 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.