The opinion of the court was delivered by: Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Charles Iseley, Sr. ("plaintiff") is an inmate at the
Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution at Green. Plaintiff suffers
from Hepatitis C, a common viral infection of the liver which can cause
liver cancer. Plaintiff asserts that for over four years he has
repeatedly requested from prison officials to be treated for Hepatitis
C, but has yet to receive such treatment.
In response to plaintiff's request, the Department of Corrections
("DOC") directed that he submit to a psychological evaluation and sign a
Mental Health Informed Consent Document ("consent form")*fn1 before his
requested treatment could proceed. As part of plaintiff's psychological
evaluation, plaintiff is required to complete a Beck Depression Inventory
("BDI questionnaire"), which consists of a series of questions designed
to help evaluate whether plaintiff suffers from depression, and to sign a
consent form authorizing the release of certain medical and personal
information.
The DOC asserts that plaintiff's treatment cannot proceed without
plaintiff first undergoing the psychological evaluation. This is so,
according to the DOC, because medicinal treatment for Hepatitis C can
cause severe psychological side effects, and the likelihood that
plaintiff will experience these side effects must be assessed before
treatment can be administered. The DOC contends that, without a
psychological evaluation, the proper course of treatment cannot be
ascertained. Moreover, defendants*fn2 refuse to treat plaintiff without
first obtaining a signed consent form. According to defendants, the
consent form authorizes the DOC to release plaintiff's medical and
personal information in order to protect other inmates and staff, and to
insure the orderly operation of the prison facility.
Plaintiff, on the other hand, refuses to submit to the psychological
evaluation as a condition for receiving treatment for Hepatitis C and
also refuses to sign the consent form.
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that
defendants have acted with deliberate indifference towards his serious
medical needs. Before this court is plaintiff's pro se request for a
preliminary injunction. The parties have made extensive and highly
detailed written submissions (see doc. nos. 96, 97, 102, 103, 104 for
plaintiff and doc. No. 100 and non-commonwealth defendants' response to
plaintiff's motion, which has yet to be docketed, for defendants) and the
court heard argument. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff's request
for injunctive relief will be denied.
The Third Circuit recently restated the factors a court must consider
and the burden a party must meet in order to obtain injunctive relief:
[t]o obtain an injunction, the plaintiff[] [has] to
demonstrate (1) that [he is] reasonably likely to
prevail eventually in the litigation and (2) that [he
is] likely to suffer irreparable injury without
relief.
If these two threshold showings are made[,] the
District Court then considers, to the extent
relevant, (3) whether an injunction would harm the
[defendant] more than denying relief would harm the
plaintiff[] and (4) whether granting relief would
serve the public interest.
Tenafly Eruv Assoc., Inc. v. Borough of Tenafly, 309 F.3d 144, 2002 WL
31388923 at *6 (3d Cir. October 24, 2002) (citing S. Camden Citizens in
Action v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 274 F.3d 771, 777 (3d Cir.
2001) and Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475, 484 (3d Cir. 2000))
(internal citations omitted). In other words, the movant must establish a
likelihood of success on the merits and a likelihood that he will suffer
irreparable injury if the requested relief is not granted before the
court can even consider public interest and the balance of hardships.
See id.
For the purpose of deciding the instant motion, the court will assume
that plaintiff can show that he will suffer irreparable harm if he is not
treated for Hepatitis C. More problematic, however, is the likelihood
that plaintiff will ultimately succeed on the merits of the instant
litigation.