Featherston v. Horan

E.D. Arkansas

Featherston v. Horan

DecidedSeptember 14, 2023

Docket4:22-cv-00154

StatusUnknown

This text of Featherston v. Horan (Featherston v. Horan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Featherston v. Horan, (E.D. Ark. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION JOSHUA FEATHERSTON PLAINTIFF ADC #154947 v. CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00154-BSM CHRIS HORAN, Doctor, WellPath, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER After careful review of the record, United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray’s recommended disposition [Doc. No. 81] is adopted. The motions for summary judgment of defendants Bruce Warren and Chris Horan [Doc. Nos. 47 & 53] are granted. Joshua Featherston’s deliberate indifference claims against Warren and Horan are dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Additionally, Featherston’s motion for order [Doc. No. 77] is denied because he has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief mandating the specific mental health treatment that he is requesting. See Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995) (“[I]n the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution because judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with

the complex and intractable problems of prison administration.”); see also Cates v. Ciccone, 422 F.2d 926, 928 (8th Cir. 1970) (“The district courts cannot become a forum to enjoin prison authorities for alleged negligence in rendering medical care to prisoners under the guise of habeas corpus or in any other action seeking injunctive relief.”). IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of September, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION JOSHUA FEATHERSTON PLAINTIFF ADC #154947 v. CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00154-BSM CHRIS HORAN, Doctor, WellPath, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER After careful review of the record, United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray’s recommended disposition [Doc. No. 81] is adopted. The motions for summary judgment of defendants Bruce Warren and Chris Horan [Doc. Nos. 47 & 53] are granted. Joshua Featherston’s deliberate indifference claims against Warren and Horan are dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Additionally, Featherston’s motion for order [Doc. No. 77] is denied because he has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief mandating the specific mental health treatment that he is requesting. See Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995) (“[I]n the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution because judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with

the complex and intractable problems of prison administration.”); see also Cates v. Ciccone, 422 F.2d 926, 928 (8th Cir. 1970) (“The district courts cannot become a forum to enjoin prison authorities for alleged negligence in rendering medical care to prisoners under the guise of habeas corpus or in any other action seeking injunctive relief.”). IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of September, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Featherston v. Horan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/featherston-v-horan-ared-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack