REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, pro se Plaintiff Timothy McCullough filed his complaint against various defendants alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, (Doc. 2), by which Plaintiff is requesting that he "receive treatment [for] his [eye issues]." (Id. at p. 1). Defendants have filed responses in opposition to Plaintiff's motion. (Docs. 31, 32). Based on the following, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DENY Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Timothy McCullough, an inmate at Shawnee Correctional Center ("Shawnee"), filed his complaint relating to the Defendants' alleged deliberate indifference to his mental and physical health issues on July 23, 2018. (Doc. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Smoot, Wilkie, and Benton were deliberately indifferent to the side effects of Plaintiff's psychotropic medication and his need for eye care, and alleges that Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. ("Wexford") has an unconstitutional policy of failing to provide adequate optometrist staffing at Shawnee. (Id.; Doc. 8, pp. 3-4). Plaintiff contemporaneously filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking an order that Defendants provide Plaintiff treatment for his eye issues, and voicing his fears that he may be rendered blind by the time his lawsuit is resolved. (Doc. 2, p. 1).
Plaintiff alleges that Shawnee employs only a single eye doctor, which he alleges is insufficient to care for the approximately 1,200 inmates that are housed at Shawnee. (Doc. 8, p. 2). According to Plaintiff, the psychotropic medication that he is taking is causing blindness, and Plaintiff states that he is almost 100% blind in his right eye. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that, while at Shawnee, Defendant Smoot failed to ensure that Plaintiff receive medical care for his eye issues, and failed to have Plaintiff seen by Shawnee's eye doctor. (Id. at p. 3). Plaintiff also alleges that he experiences headaches due to his eye condition and experiences eye strain and pain due to his outdated eyewear. (Id.). Defendant Wilkie allegedly delayed Plaintiff from receiving care for his eyes and generally refused to provide adequate medical care to Plaintiff while at Shawnee. (Id.).
However, on April 21, 2018, Plaintiff was evaluated by non-party optometrist Alan Montgomery, who evaluated Plaintiff's complaints of blurry vision and general vision difficulty. (Doc. 31, p. 2). Plaintiff was prescribed new bifocal lenses at this time. (Id.). Plaintiff then returned to see Dr. Montgomery on May 19, 2018 and June 16, 2018, complaining of radiating pain in his eyes while watching TV. (Id.). Dr. Montgomery prescribed artificial tears to Plaintiff, and requested a consult for Plaintiff with an ophthalmologist. (Id.). Defendant Wexford approved this request on June 21, 2018, and Plaintiff was subsequently evaluated by nonparty Doctor Maqbool Ahmad on June 29, 2018. (Id.).
After his evaluation, Doctor Ahmad performed a surgical laser procedure on Plaintiff and prescribed steroid eye drops for Plaintiff to self-administrate. (Id. at p. 3). Plaintiff followed up with Doctor Allan Brummel on July 6, 2018. (Id.). Doctor Brummel noted that Plaintiff's iris was healed from surgery, and Plaintiff's intraocular pressure was normal, and Plaintiff has continued to receive artificial tears for self-administration since that time. (Id.). Plaintiff filed his Complaint and present Motion seventeen (17) days later, on July 23, 2018. (Id. at p. 1).
LEGAL STANDARDS
Plaintiff's motion seeks a preliminary injunction. Injunctions are extraordinary equitable remedies that are to be granted in civil cases only when specific criteria are clearly met by the movant. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). The plaintiff must show four elements for an injunction: (1) plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) without an injunction irreparable harm against the plaintiff is likely; (3) the harm likely to be suffered by the plaintiff would be greater than the harm the injunction would inflict on defendants; and (4) the injunction is in the public interest. Id. The greater the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed on the merits of the case, the less significant the likely harm against the plaintiff must be in relation to the harm the defendant will likely suffer due to an injunction. Id. According to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) injunctions in the prison context must be "narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm." 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626. Courts may issue preliminary injunctions only on notice to the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1).
In the context of prisoner litigation, there are further restrictions on courts' remedial power. The scope of the court's authority to enter an injunction in the corrections context is circumscribed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2012). Under the PLRA, preliminary injunction relief "must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm." 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(2). See also Westefer, 682 F.3d at 683 (the PLRA "enforces a point repeatedly made by the Supreme Court in cases challenging prison conditions: prison officials have broad administrative and discretionary authority over the institutions they manage") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The Seventh Circuit has described injunctions like the one sought here, where an injunction would require an affirmative act by the defendant, as a mandatory preliminary injunction. Graham v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 130 F.3d 293, 295 (7th Cir. 1997). Mandatory injunctions are "cautiously viewed and sparingly issued," since they require the court to command a defendant to take a particular action. Id. (citing Jordan v. Wolke, 593 F.2d 772, 774 (7th Cir. 1978)). See also W.A. Mack, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 260 F.2d 886, 890 (7th Cir. 1958) ("A preliminary injunction does not issue which gives to a plaintiff the actual advantage which would be obtained in a final decree.").
ANALYSIS
Here, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction at this time. Plaintiff has not shown that he has a likelihood of success on the merits as to his claim regarding Defendants' alleged deliberate indifference towards his serious medical needs relating to his eye issues. To the contrary, the record indicates that Plaintiff has received evaluation and treatment from multiple eye specialists, both at Shawnee and from outside providers, including a surgical procedure less than a month prior to filing his Complaint.
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to provide treatment for his eye issues. Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion imply, if not outright state, that Defendants have failed to provide him with any treatment, whether at Shawnee or from outside providers. Plaintiff alleges that specific Defendants have ignored his medical needs, and that Plaintiff's medical treatment has been delayed or outright denied due to Defendant's Wexford's alleged policy of inadequately staffing Shawnee.
However, the record indicates that, contrary to the allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion, Plaintiff has in fact been evaluated, diagnosed, and treated (both with medication and surgical intervention) by multiple optometrists and an outside ophthalmologist in the weeks and months leading up to Plaintiff's Complaint. The undersigned need not evaluate the merits of Plaintiff's potential damages claim for his backwards-looking deliberate indifference allegations against the Defendants—instead the undersigned evaluates Plaintiff's forward-looking request for an injunction governing Defendants' future behavior regarding the treatment of Plaintiff's eye issues through the lens of Defendants' treatment of Plaintiff's issues to this point.
The facts in the record indicate that Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed in showing that Defendants' present treatment plan for Plaintiff's eye issues demonstrates deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff has been evaluated and treated by multiple eye doctors and has even received a surgical procedure from an outside physician. As such, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits for this aspect of his preliminary injunction request, and thus he is not entitled to a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to provide him treatment when Defendants have already repeatedly done so. Plaintiff has neither alleged nor adequately shown that the treatment he received as recently as July 6, 2018 was ineffective, nor has Plaintiff shown that any Defendant is likely to deny him continued treatment for his eye problems going forward.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DENY Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 2).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.1(b), the parties may object to any or all of the proposed dispositive findings in this Recommendation. The failure to file a timely objection may result in the waiver of the right to challenge this Recommendation before either the District Court or the Court of Appeals. See, e.g., Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 284 (7th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed on or before January 7, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
