Smith v. GerstSmith v. Gerst
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff. (Doc. 11). For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Thomas Smith, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections, commenced this civil action on March 4, 2026, pursuant to
Plaintiff states that he first saw Defendant Physician Assistant Gerst on January 20, 2026,
Plaintiff alleges that he submitted another sick call slip on February 10, 2026, and was seen by a nurse on February 12, 2026. (Doc. 10, p. 4). He states that at this time, his thumb was still swollen, and he had limited range of motion. The nurse noted that Plaintiff still needed to see a doctor following his x-rays. (Id.). Plaintiff submitted a sick call slip on February 17, 2026, because of his ongoing pain, loss of feeling, and limited range of motion. (Id. at p. 5).
Plaintiff had a second appointment with Gerst on February 27, 2026, to review the x-ray results. (Doc. 10, p. 5). Plaintiff states that during this appointment Gerst explained that the x-ray results were normal. Gerst did not order any further testing, despite Plaintiff‘s “obnoxious deformity” and ongoing symptoms – pain and tingling sensation. (Id.).
Plaintiff submitted a sick call slip on March 8, 2026, and was seen by a nurse on March 11, 2026. (Doc. 10, p. 5). He had his third appointment with Gerst on March 17, 2026. At the appointment, Plaintiff states that he explained that he was still experiencing pain, a “pins and needles sensation,” limited range of motion, and a tight feeling like a “rubber band was going to snap in [his] thumb.” Plaintiff alleges that Gerst did not examine him and only reviewed the x-ray results again. (Id.). Gerst told Plaintiff that if his thumb was not better in a month, then Plaintiff should write to the medical director. (Id. at p. 5-6).
Plaintiff submitted a sick call slip and was seen by a nurse on March 22, 2026. (Doc. 10,
Pursuant to
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” for which there must be a “clear showing” that a plaintiff is entitled to relief. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §2948 (5th ed. 1995)). The purpose of such an injunction is “to minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit.” Faheem-El v. Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating:
- a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits;
- no adequate remedy at law; and
- irreparable harm absent the injunction.
According to the medical records, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Dennis Larson at Big Muddy River Correctional Center (Big Muddy) on April 22, 2026, for complaints of pain in his left thumb. (Doc. 24, p. 2). Dr. Larson referred Plaintiff to a specialist. (Doc. 24-1, p. 12). Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Mourad, an orthopedic surgeon, on June 5, 2026. (Id. at p. 13). Dr. Mourad indicated in the medical records that Plaintiff has a healed left thumb interphalangeal joint dislocation, and under recommendations and plans, Dr. Mourad wrote, “nothing.” (Id.). Defendants argue that based on these records Plaintiff has received ongoing care, and he will not suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted. (Doc. 24, p. 2; Doc. 27, p. 5).
Plaintiff argues that Defendants have provided the Court with misleading information. (Doc. 25, p. 2). He contends that although it is true that Dr. Mourad recorded “nothing” regarding further treatment plans, Dr. Mourad was under the impression that he was treating Plaintiff for a recent bone break. According to Plaintiff, he informed Dr. Mourad that he was supposed to be receiving treatment for “possible ligament and/or nerve damage.” (Id.). Dr. Mourad told Plaintiff that he could not see if there was ligament or nerve damage based on the x-ray results and that he would need an MRI and possibly a CT scan to assess for ligament and nerve damage. (Id. at p. 1, 2; Doc. 26, p. 2). Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Mourad told him that he would need to be referred again so that Dr. Mourad could schedule those scans before deciding on any further treatment. (Doc. 25, p. 2; Doc. 26, p. 3). Plaintiff states that when he returned to Big Muddy, he saw a nurse practitioner.
First, Plaintiff again has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim against Gerst. As this Court previously observed, all Plaintiff has done is establish that he disagrees and is unhappy with the care Gerst provided. (See Doc. 5, p. 4) (citing Proctor v. Sood, 863 F.3d 563, 568 (7th Cir. 2017)). Plaintiff believes that Gerst should have ordered further diagnostic testing, but there is nothing in the record indicating how Plaintiff plans to demonstrate that Gerst‘s decision to treat him with ibuprofen and to allow his “thumb to heal on its own, based on ‘normal’ x-ray results, departed from accepted medical judgment, practice, or standards” for a dislocated thumb. (Id. at p. 5). For the purposes of a preliminary injunction, the Court does not accept Plaintiff‘s allegations in the First Amended Complaint “as true, nor do[es] [it] give [Plaintiff] the benefit of all reasonable inferences in his favor.” Doe v. Univ. of S. Indiana, 43 F.4th 784, 791 (7th Cir. 2022). Other than the facts as stated in the First Amended Complaint and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff has not offered any evidence to substantiate his claim that Gerst treated him with deliberate indifference, in other words, that no minimally competent professional would have responded as Gerst did to Plaintiff‘s injury. See Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954, 965 (7th Cir. 2019). Therefore, he has not demonstrated a likelihood of success
Second, Plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to suffer irreparable injury without the Court‘s involvement. In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks a court order directing that he be sent to an “orthopedic doctor to be properly diagnosed and treated, and [directing] Defendants to prescribe proper pain medication.” (Doc. 11, p. 3). Plaintiff has been seen by an orthopedic surgeon as requested; however, he is still unhappy with his care. Although Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Mourad told him that further referrals and testing would be needed in order to assess if he had in fact damaged his ligaments or nerves, Dr. Mourad did not provide any recommendations for further treatment, including pain medication, in the medical record. (Doc. 24-1, p. 13). There may be more information in Dr. Mourad‘s dictated note about future treatment options for possible nerve or ligament damage, but even so, there is no evidence that Dr. Mourad considered this expedient and that Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable injury absent immediate action. (See Doc. 11, p. 3).
Because Plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim against Gerst and that irreparable harm will occur without Court intervention, he has not made a clear showing that a preliminary injunction is warranted. The Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. (Doc. 11).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 5, 2026
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge