Hickey v. Thompkins

D. Massachusetts

Hickey v. Thompkins

DecidedSeptember 11, 2019

Docket1:19-cv-11349

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Hickey v. Thompkins, (D. Mass. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) THOMAS HICKEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 19-11349-LTS ) STEVEN TOMPKINS ET AL, ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC. 11)

September 11, 2019

SOROKIN, J. Plaintiff Thomas Hickey, a person in the custody of the Suffolk County Sheriff, filed the pending civil rights action pro se on June 17, 2019. On August 7, 2019, Mr. Hickey filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction requesting the Court to order the defendants to prescribe him two medications that he received prior to his incarceration—Suboxone and Gabapentin. Doc. 11. The Court ordered the Sheriff and two other county defendants to respond to the Motion, which they did on August 28, 2019. Doc. 24. After review of the motion papers under the familiar standard for injunctive relief, Puerto Rico Hosp. Supply, Inc. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 426 F.3d 503, 505 (1st Cir. 2005), the Motion is DENIED. Insofar as Mr. Hickey seeks Suboxone, the Motion is denied as moot. Subsequent to the filing of the Motion, the Suffolk County Sheriff became part of a pilot program authorized by state statute providing for the administration of medication assisted treatment, including Suboxone, to persons in county custody. Pursuant to that newly implemented pilot program, Mr. Hickey now receives Suboxone. Doc. 24 at 11 (citing Exh. 3). Insofar as Mr. Hickey seeks Gabapentin, which he seeks for pain, Mr. Hickey has failed to meet his burden to show he is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Considering the evidence that he receives various apparently reasonable measures for pain relief, id. at 2-8 (citing Exhs. 2 & 3), coupled with medical records supporting the conclusion that these measures are having some success, id., Mr. Hickey fails to establish his entitlement to relief at this stage.

Accordingly, the Motion (Doc. 11) is DENIED. The Clerk shall proceed to schedule a Rule 16 Conference and shall, if possible, arrange Mr. Hickey’s appearance by video. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Leo T. Sorokin Leo T. Sorokin United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) THOMAS HICKEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 19-11349-LTS ) STEVEN TOMPKINS ET AL, ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC. 11)

September 11, 2019

SOROKIN, J. Plaintiff Thomas Hickey, a person in the custody of the Suffolk County Sheriff, filed the pending civil rights action pro se on June 17, 2019. On August 7, 2019, Mr. Hickey filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction requesting the Court to order the defendants to prescribe him two medications that he received prior to his incarceration—Suboxone and Gabapentin. Doc. 11. The Court ordered the Sheriff and two other county defendants to respond to the Motion, which they did on August 28, 2019. Doc. 24. After review of the motion papers under the familiar standard for injunctive relief, Puerto Rico Hosp. Supply, Inc. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 426 F.3d 503, 505 (1st Cir. 2005), the Motion is DENIED. Insofar as Mr. Hickey seeks Suboxone, the Motion is denied as moot. Subsequent to the filing of the Motion, the Suffolk County Sheriff became part of a pilot program authorized by state statute providing for the administration of medication assisted treatment, including Suboxone, to persons in county custody. Pursuant to that newly implemented pilot program, Mr. Hickey now receives Suboxone. Doc. 24 at 11 (citing Exh. 3). Insofar as Mr. Hickey seeks Gabapentin, which he seeks for pain, Mr. Hickey has failed to meet his burden to show he is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Considering the evidence that he receives various apparently reasonable measures for pain relief, id. at 2-8 (citing Exhs. 2 & 3), coupled with medical records supporting the conclusion that these measures are having some success, id., Mr. Hickey fails to establish his entitlement to relief at this stage.

Accordingly, the Motion (Doc. 11) is DENIED. The Clerk shall proceed to schedule a Rule 16 Conference and shall, if possible, arrange Mr. Hickey’s appearance by video. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Leo T. Sorokin Leo T. Sorokin United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hickey v. Thompkins, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickey-v-thompkins-mad-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack