Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01194_de7> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01194_de7 RegisterActionDate "2016-06-08" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01194_de7 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 6/8/2016. Plaintiff has filed a complaint and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order reiterating the claims of the complaint and requesting injunctive relief 6 . It appears that Plaintiff had jaw surgery 17 years ago, at which time a metal plate was inserted into the jaw. Plaintiff began experiencing pain at the site, approximately 1 year ago. He was treated at the Pontiac Correctional Center by a physician, dentist and oral surgeon. He was thereafter referred out to another oral surgeon. On April 21, 2016, surgeon removed a portion of the plate on April from Plaintiffs jaw. Plaintiff was told that the remainder of the plate had fused to the bone and could not be removed at that time. Plaintiff continued in pain and was sent back to the outside oral surgeon for a follow-up surgery. The surgeon, however, examine Plaintiff and determined that he did not have the tools to remove the remainder of the plate. Plaintiff is requesting injunctive relief, that he be provided additional medical care and surgery. The purpose of a temporary restraining order and ultimately a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a final hearing on the merits of the case. American Hospital Assn v. Harris, 625 F.2d 1328, 1330 (7th Cir. 1980). To prevail, "the moving party must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a lack of an adequate remedy at law; and (3) an irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted." Foodcomm Int'l v. Barry, 328 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff fails to establish the first requirement, a likelihood of success on the merits. Though the record is not fully established, it appears that Plaintiff has been receiving regular care and has undergone surgery by an outside oral surgeon. Plaintiff's own complaint alleges that the oral surgeon decline to do a second surgery, claiming that the remaining portion of the plate was fused to the bone. While Plaintiff might have a claim through his underlying complaint, that his pain was not well controlled, he is not likely to prevail on a claim that he should undergo additional surgery. As a result, 6 is DENIED. (JMB, ilcd) (Entered: 06/08/2016)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01194_de7 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01194_de7 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01194_de5 @default.