United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. Hollander United States District Judge.
above-captioned case was opened on July 31, 2018, upon
receipt of a civil rights Complaint filed by James Robinson,
a prisoner at North Branch Correctional Institution
(“NBCI”). Robinson alleged deliberate
indifference to his medical needs. ECF 1. Robinson also filed
motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, for
appointment of counsel, and for a temporary restraining order
or a preliminary injunction. ECF 2; ECF 3; ECF 4.
August 3, 2018, the Court directed the Office of the Maryland
Attorney General to show cause why injunctive relief should
not be granted in Robinson's favor. ECF 5. The Attorney
General filed a Response (ECF 11), with exhibits.
Subsequently, Robinson filed an Amended Complaint, which is
substantially similar to his original Complaint. ECF 16.
Robinson also filed a second motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and for a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction. ECF 17; ECF 20. In addition, he filed
a motion for production of documents. ECF 19.
hearing is necessary to resolve these motions. See
Local Rule 105.6.
Motions for Injunctive Relief (ECF 4; ECF 20)
2016, Robinson was the victim of a serious assault at the
hands of another inmate, which resulted in head injuries and
a brief hospitalization. ECF 1 at 3. Robinson asserts that he
was and continues to be provided with inadequate medical
treatment to address the injuries that he suffered during the
assault. Id. In particular, Robinson states
I been putting in sick calls for over a whole year now about
the same issues saying that [I']m having problems with
something feeling like it move inside my head, nerves
twitching too much, alot of dizziness, blurry v[i]sion, bones
cracking way more than they suppose[d] to, I be having
migraines, snot dropping out of my nose, barely being able to
hear, my swollen bruised eyes, weight loss, teeth wearing
down, gums overlapping [, ] ears, nose & throat sucking
in make me choke and hard to swallow, dick & balls
getting small and not getting hard and etc but what have they
actually done about it?
Id. (some capitalization altered).
Robinson's initial motion for a temporary restraining
order or a preliminary injunction (ECF 4, “PI
Motion”), he asks that defendants: (1) be enjoined
“from not trying to personally get [him] to attend
[his] medical & dental appointments before signing any
more refusal slips denying [him] medical and dental care,
” (2) be required to reschedule his medical and dental
appointments “within that same week if [Defendants] do
sign a refusal slip”; (3) send him to a hospital for
treatment and surgery “to remove all the scars and fix
the broken bones in [his] face, uplift [his] gums[, and]
repair [his] teeth with some perm[a]nent platinum
teeth”; (4) transfer him from NBCI to Jessup
Correctional Institution; and (5) specially wrap his food
because Robinson has been “having too many problems
with the [correctional officers] and feed up workers in this
prison and alot of [his] food don't be looking
right.” ECF 4.
second motion for a temporary restraining order or a
preliminary injunction (ECF 20, “TRO Motion”) is
substantially similar to his PI Motion. But, it contains
additional requests. Robinson asks that defendants: (6)
“cancel the life insurance policy they made on [him] in
the end 2016”; (7) “transfer [him] out of the
whole Cumberland region to a prison where at leas[t] half the
staff there is black African Americans, ”; (8) remove
him from “lock up”; and (9) order an outside
medical provider to give him “thorough blood work
ASAP” because Robinson does not trust the staff at the
oppose Robinson's PI Motion, asserting that Robinson is
frequently seen by medical providers and that such medical
providers have “been unable to substantiate any actual
physical injury to treat”; that it is suspected that
the true cause for Robinson's complaints is psychological
rather than physical; that some delay in Robinson's
treatment is a consequence of his repeated disciplinary
infractions and resulting placement on staff alert; and that
Robinson has refused treatment on multiple occasions. ECF 11
at 4-5, 13-16. Defendants were not ordered to respond to
Robinson's TRO Motion.
preliminary injunction is distinguished from a temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) only by the difference
in notice to the nonmoving party and by the duration of the
injunction. U.S. Dep't of Labor v. Wolf Run Mining
Co.,452 F.3d 275, 281 n.1 (4th Cir. 2006) (comparing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a) with Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)). A preliminary
injunction cannot issue without notice to the nonmovant.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). Because Defendants
have responded to the PI Motion, it will be construed as one
for a preliminary injunction. Because Defendants have not
been ordered to respond to the TRO Motion, it will be treated
as a Motion ...