United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER
R. Underhill United States District Judge
Shawn Milner (“Milner”), currently incarcerated
at Northern Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut,
filed this case pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs while he was confined at Bridgeport
Correctional Center. Milner now is confined at Northern
Correctional Institution. He has filed a motion for
preliminary injunctive relief seeking an immediate end to his
confinement in administrative and punitive segregation,
provision of all medical care Milner deems necessary,
transfer to a correctional facility with an on-site 24-hour
infirmary, and restoration of his telephone and
courts may grant interim injunctive relief, in the form of a
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order
“where a plaintiff demonstrates irreparable harm and
meets one of two related standards: either (a) a likelihood
of success on the merits, or (b) sufficiently serious
questions going to the merits of its claims to make them fair
ground for litigation, plus a balance of the hardships
tipping decidedly in favor of the moving party.”
Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians v. New York
State Dep't of Fin. Servs., 769 F.3d 105, 110 (2d
Cir. 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
When the moving party seeks mandatory relief that
“alters the status quo by commanding some positive act,
” however, the burden is higher. Cacchillo v.
Insmed, Inc., 638 F.3d 401, 406 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). The court should not
grant mandatory injunctive relief absent “a clear
showing that the moving party is entitled to the relief
requested, or where extreme or very serious damage will
result from the denial of preliminary relief.”
Id. (citation omitted).
district court has wide discretion in determining whether to
grant preliminary injunctive relief. Moore v. Consol.
Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 511 (2d Cir.
2005). “In the prison context, a request for injunctive
relief must always be viewed with great caution so as not to
immerse the federal judiciary in the management of state
prisons.” Fisher v. Goord, 981 F.Supp. 140,
167 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) (citing, inter alia, Farmer
v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 846-47 (1994)).
addition, the request for injunctive relief must relate to
the claims in the complaint. See De Beers Consol. Mines
Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, 220 (1945)
(observing that a preliminary injunction is appropriate to
grant intermediate relief of “the same character as
that which relief may be granted finally, ” but
inappropriate where the injunction “deals with a matter
lying wholly outside the issues in the suit”); see
also Oliphant v. Quiros, 2010 WL 2180780, at *1 (D.
Conn. May 19, 2010) (“[T]he petitioner must establish a
relationship between the injury claimed in the motion seeking
injunctive relief and the conduct giving rise to the
action.”) (citing Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Trans
World Airlines, 111 F.3d 14, 16 (4th Cir. 1997)).
claims in this action concern treatment for seizures that
Milner received at Bridgeport Correctional Center. There are
no claims regarding confinement in administrative or punitive
segregation, denial of telephone calls to family or the
ability to purchase food, or medical care for other
complaints. Because those issues are not related to any
claims in this case, the request for injunctive relief to
address them is denied.
only request for relief that does appear related to the
issues in this case is Milner's request that he be
transferred to a facility with a 24-hour infirmary. Milner
contends that he requires such a facility to address his
medical needs. He has provided medical records showing that
he was taken to the hospital following a seizure experienced
at Cheshire Correctional Institution and that he is taking
several anti-seizure medications. In lieu of evidence
specifically indicating that he must be confined in a
facility with a 24-hour infirmary, Milner asserts that he was
returned to Northern Correctional Institution because that
facility has a 24-hour infirmary and Cheshire Correctional
Institution does not; however, the transfer summary he
provides includes no reason for the transfer. See
ECF No. 35 at 19. The defendants state, without evidentiary
support, that correctional medical staff are aware of his
condition and that he is being appropriately treated.
of the outcome of the parties' dispute over whether
Milner actually requires such care, as a result of the
transfer to Northern, Milner currently is incarcerated in a
facility with a 24-hour infirmary. The speculative
possibility that he may be transferred to a facility without
one, without a more concrete threat, does not support an
award of preliminary injunctive relief. See Faiveley v.
Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., 449 F.3d 110, 118
(2d Cir. 2009) (speculative injury insufficient to warrant
preliminary injunctive relief). Thus, Milner has not shown
that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.
motion for preliminary injunctive relief [ECF No. 34] is
DENIED without prejudice.