Richard Thomas Hamilton v. NaphCare Incorporated

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied Richard Thomas Hamilton’s motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against NaphCare Incorporated. The court concluded that Hamilton had not shown a likelihood of success on his Eighth Amendment medical-care claims, a likelihood of irreparable harm, or compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s requirements that relief be narrowly drawn and minimally intrusive. The court also directed the Clerk to redesignate a docket filing as Hamilton’s reply.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff was not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief because the evidence did not establish a likelihood of success on the merits or serious questions supporting his deliberate-indifference claims, and the remaining preliminary-injunction factors were also unsatisfied.
2. Plaintiff did not demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm absent an immediate surgical consultation.
3. The requested injunction was not narrowly drawn and did not use the least intrusive means necessary to correct the alleged harm.
4. A prisoner does not have a constitutional right to choose a particular medical provider.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hamilton satisfied the preliminary-injunction requirements by showing a likelihood of success or serious questions on his Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims.
2. Whether Hamilton demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm absent an immediate referral to Dr. Lott or another specialist.
3. Whether the requested injunction complied with the Prison Litigation Reform Act's requirements that prisoner injunctive relief be narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means necessary to correct the alleged harm.
4. Whether a prisoner has a constitutional right to obtain treatment from a particular medical provider.

Disposition

other