DREWRY v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS
1:14-cv-00392
D. Me.May 28, 2015Background
- Plaintiff, an inmate at Maine State Prison, alleges inadequate medical care for frequent nosebleeds and a chronic skin condition and seeks specific treatments (YAG laser for nostrils; renewal of skin lotion).
- Plaintiff filed renewed motions for a preliminary injunction seeking court-ordered medical procedures and monitoring; earlier motions were denied without prejudice for procedural defects.
- Plaintiff repeatedly requested appointment of counsel; prior requests were denied. He also moved for an order requiring prison staff to make photocopies in his presence and filed several motions for extensions/stays related to responding to a motion to dismiss.
- Defendants submitted admissible medical-affairs evidence (affidavit of Dr. Robert Clinton) indicating Plaintiff received appropriate care; Defendant Robert H. Dixon moved to dismiss, arguing he is not a state actor.
- Plaintiff subsequently represented that Dixon was named in error and did not oppose Dixon’s dismissal; the magistrate judge considered the motions and evidence and issued recommendations on injunctions, counsel, photocopying, extensions, and Dixon’s dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preliminary injunction for YAG laser and skin lotion | Drewry asked court to order Correct Care Solutions to schedule two YAG laser procedures and continue skin lotion | Defendants presented affidavit evidence that care provided was appropriate and injunctive relief is unwarranted | Denied — Plaintiff failed to provide admissible evidence satisfying Winter factors; defendants’ evidence negated need for extraordinary relief |
| Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) | Drewry asserts inability to litigate due to lack of legal knowledge and prison restrictions | Court: no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases; appointment discretionary and reserved for exceptional circumstances | Denied — case facts and law are sufficiently straightforward; Drewry can represent himself |
| Order requiring prison staff to make photocopies in Plaintiff’s presence | Drewry seeks an order compelling prison staff to make copies and to do so in his presence for this and other civil actions | No policy-making prison official is a party; DOC hasn’t been given opportunity to respond; no record evidence of constitutional violation | Denied — specific relief denied; court directed defendants to inform prison officials of Drewry’s concerns and ensure defendants have no access to his legal materials |
| Motion to dismiss Defendant Dixon (not a state actor) | Drewry later represented Dixon was named in error and did not oppose dismissal | Dixon asserted he is not a state actor under § 1983 and sought dismissal | Granted — Dixon’s motion to dismiss recommended as Drewry conceded Dixon was named in error |
Key Cases Cited
- Peoples Federal Sav. Bank v. People’s United Bank, 672 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (sets out preliminary injunction as extraordinary remedy and cites Winter factors)
- Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTC Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011) (discusses standards for preliminary injunctive relief)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction)
- DesRosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1991) (standards for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1))