Bollinger 328092 v. NaphCare Incorporated, 2:23-cv-02008

Johnny Ray Bollinger, an Arizona state prisoner with psoriatic and rheumatoid arthritis, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging NaphCare and a nurse practitioner denied him adequate medical care.
Before incarceration, Bollinger was successfully treated with methotrexate and Enbrel; after entering custody, Enbrel was denied as not being on the formulary and due to cost.
Over multiple years and facilities, Bollinger repeatedly sought both the medication and the opportunity to see a rheumatologist, citing worsening symptoms and functional disability.
Several providers, including specialists, recommended Enbrel or an equivalent biologic and a rheumatologist consultation, but NaphCare delayed or refused to follow through on these recommendations.
Bollinger moved for a preliminary injunction to require a specialist visit, compliance with the specialist’s orders, and appropriate medication, asserting ongoing irreparable harm.
The court considered not only the parties' initial briefs but also supplemental facts showing continued delays and non-compliance by NaphCare.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial/Delay of Specialist Care and Biologic Medication	NaphCare failed to provide effective treatment and timely specialist care, leading to ongoing severe symptoms.	Plaintiff was consistently seen for chronic care; delays and formulary restrictions are justified.	For Bollinger: delays and failure to follow specialist’s orders likely show deliberate indifference.
Compliance with Specialist Recommendations	Specialist prescribed Enbrel/biologic, to which NaphCare did not adhere.	Enbrel is not on formulary; alternate treatment or additional labs required before initiation.	For Bollinger: NaphCare must follow specialist’s recommendations.
Irreparable Harm	Plaintiff’s symptoms are worsening, including pain, immobility, and risk of permanent harm; money damages inadequate.	Plaintiff is not debilitated; he is receiving care; harm is not irreparable.	For Bollinger: ongoing inadequately treated pain and disability constitutes irreparable harm.
Scope and Burden of Injunctive Relief	Relief must be narrowly tailored but should ensure orders are followed and medical needs are met.	Injunction poses security and logistical risks; already providing much of requested care.	For Bollinger: injunction is appropriate, narrowly tailored, and in public interest.

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (Supreme Court standard for preliminary injunctions, requiring likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. on preliminary injunction standard)
Porretti v. Dzurenda, 11 F.4th 1037 (9th Cir. on balancing prisoner rights in preliminary injunctions)
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. on deliberate indifference standard under the Eighth Amendment)
Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. on failure to follow a specialist’s treatment orders as evidence of deliberate indifference)
Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. on deference to treating specialists and Eighth Amendment claims)
Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 884 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir.; access to medical staff is meaningless without competent care)
Nelson v. NASA, 530 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. constitutional violations constitute irreparable harm)