United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON THE REMAINDER OF RELIEF REQUESTED IN
PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Dexter Anderson, has filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his security
classification and conditions of confinement at the Federal
Correctional Institution at Danbury (“FCI
Danbury”). Petition, ECF No. 1. Along with his
Petition, Mr. Anderson also filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order. Mot. for
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, ECF
No. 4. The Court resolved part of that motion in a prior
Order, dismissing all but one of the requests for relief.
Order to Show Cause and Partial Ruling on Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order 4, ECF
No. 9. In the same Order, the Court also directed the
Respondent (1) to show cause why the Petition should not be
granted and (2) to respond to the only remaining aspect of
the motion for a preliminary injunction, regarding Mr.
Anderson’s requests for medical appointments and tests.
Id. at 1.
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the Petition
addressing these two issues. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 14. Mr.
Anderson filed an objection to the motion to dismiss over a
week after his deadline to respond had expired. Response, ECF
No. 18. Because Mr. Anderson is pro se and the
Respondent does not object to the filing’s timing, the
Court will consider this late filing.
reasons that follow, the remainder of the relief requested in
the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order, ECF No. 4, is DENIED. The Court will
address the merits of the Petition at a later date.
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining
Order [ECF No. 4]
injunctive relief “is an extraordinary and drastic
remedy [ ] that should not be granted unless the movant, by a
clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.”
Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 409
F.3d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). To show entitlement to a preliminary
injunction, the moving party must demonstrate (a) that he or
she will suffer “irreparable harm” in the absence
of an injunction, and (b) either (1) a “likelihood of
success on the merits or (2) sufficiently serious questions
going to the merits [of the case] to make them a fair ground
for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly
toward the party requesting the preliminary relief.”
Cacchillo v. Insmed, Inc., 638 F.3d 401, 405-06 (2d
Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
only part of his motion that the Court has yet to address,
Mr. Anderson seeks a preliminary injunction compelling the
Respondent to provide him with various medical tests and
appointments. In particular, Mr. Anderson claims that in June
and July 2015, medical officials at FCI Danbury approved
requests that he undergo an MRI of his back, a consultation
with an ear, nose and throat specialist to address his
complaints of ear and throat pain and swollen lymph nodes, a
consultation with a cardiologist with regard to his
complaints of chest pain, and a follow-up appointment with an
orthopedist to address his back and knee pain. Mot. for
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order 2, ECF
No. 4. He includes Utilization Review Notification forms with
his motion, which indicate that he was approved for the
following: an MRI on June 24, 2015, an appointment with an
ear, nose, and throat specialist on July 28, 2015, and an
appointment with a cardiologist on June 30, 2015.
Id. at 6-8. He contends that he has not been sent
for any of these tests, appointments or consultations.
Respondent argues that the Court should deny Mr. Anderson the
preliminary injunction he seeks because he has already
received “a robust course of medical care” that
“has been clinically appropriate and provided in
accordance with BOP policy.” Mot. to Dismiss Br. 7-8,
ECF No. 14-1. In support of this argument, Respondent has
provided the Declaration of Captain Darin D. Daly. Daly
Decl., ECF No. 14-3. Captain Daly is a commissioned officer
in the United States Public Health Service and currently
serves as a Health Services Administrator at the FCI Danbury.
Services Administrator Daly declares that Mr. Anderson
underwent an MRI of his back on November 9, 2015 at Danbury
Hospital, saw an ear, nose and throat specialist on October
14, 2015, and saw a cardiologist on November 25, 2015.
See Id. ¶¶8-10. In accordance with the
prescriptions of these specialists, Mr. Anderson has been
seen for various types of follow-up testing after these
appointments, including a CT scan of his neck on January 6,
2016 and further cardiology testing that was scheduled for
March 2016. See Id. ¶¶9-10. A physician
reviewed the results of the CT scan, examined Mr. Anderson,
and recommended that he undergo surgery to remove a benign
tumor in his salivary gland. See Id. ¶9. The
Bureau of Prisons is in the process of scheduling this
surgical procedure. See id.
respect to Mr. Anderson’s orthopedic conditions
involving his back and knee, Health Services Administrator
Daly declares that Mr. Anderson has been enrolled in the
Orthopedic Chronic Care Clinic since November 2009. See
Id. ¶7. Through his enrollment in the Orthopedic
Chronic Care Clinic, a physician examines Mr. Anderson at
least once a year or more, if his medical symptoms require
it. See Id. Furthermore, a list of visits with
medical specialists reflects that Mr. Anderson was seen by an
orthopedist at FCI Danbury in February 2015 and February
2016. See Daly Decl. Ex. 3, ECF No. 14-3. Mr.
Anderson has also seen medical specialists nine times since
July 1, 2014. Daly Decl. ¶6, ECF No. 14-3.
objection to the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Mr.
Anderson concedes that he has undergone “several”
medical treatments, including an examination by a
cardiologist and a CT scan. See Response 10, ECF No.
18; Anderson Aff. ¶34, ECF No. 18-1. He also
acknowledges that the ear, nose and throat specialist has
recommended surgery to remove a tumor. Anderson Aff.
¶35, ECF No. 18-1.
of the various types of testing and examinations that Mr.
Anderson has undergone since filing his motion for injunctive
relief in September 2015, there is no evidence to suggest
that the Respondent has been deliberately indifferent to his
medical needs. The Court concludes that Mr. Anderson has not
shown that he is subject to imminent harm with regard to his
cardiac, orthopedic, back, knee or throat conditions.
Additional Request for Injunctive Relief Made in Mr.
Anderson’s Response to the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No.
response to the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Mr.
Anderson also seeks additional injunctive relief to ensure
that he undergoes the surgery to remove his tumor as soon as
possible. Response 10, ECF No. 18; Anderson Aff. ¶36,
ECF No. 18-1. Because this request was not in Mr.
Anderson’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order, it should have been ...