The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
VALDEZ LAMONT JORDAN, #B29482, )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) Case No. 24-cv-02125-SMY
)
JOHN BARWICK, )
CHRISTINE BROWN, )
PERCY MYERS, and )
BOB PLUM, )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Valdez Lamont Jordan’s
Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction, filed September 4, 2024, along with his Complaint
(Doc. 2). Plaintiff, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently
incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, seeks a referral to a specialist for diagnosis of
his longstanding painful throat condition. Since June 2022, Plaintiff has had difficulty swallowing,
throat pain, and a feeling that something was stuck in his throat. Since November 2023, he has
had ongoing gnawing stomach pain, and more recently has developed ear pain.1
At the Court’s direction, Warden Barwick, in his official capacity, responded to the motion
for injunctive relief (Doc. 27). For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive
relief is GRANTED.
To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) his underlying case
1 Plaintiff’s case is proceeding on the following claim: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs claim against Barwick, Brown, Myers, and Plum for delaying and denying adequate medical care and diagnostic
referrals for Plaintiff’s severe and painful throat and stomach symptoms (Doc. 11, p. 4).
has some likelihood of success on the merits; (2) no adequate remedy at law exists; and (3) he will
suffer irreparable harm without the relief. Merritte v. Kessel, 561 F. App’x 546, 548 (7th Cir.
2014) (citing Woods v. Buss, 496 F.3d 620, 622 (7th Cir. 2007)). If those elements are established,
the Court must weigh the “balance of harm to the parties if the injunction is granted or denied and
evaluate the effect of an injunction on the public interest. Id.; Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 665
(7th Cir. 2013).
The above-referenced factors weigh in favor of granting preliminary injunctive relief to
Plaintiff. Based on Plaintiff’s verified Complaint, Barwick’s response, and the medical records
submitted, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated a “better than negligible” chance of
succeeding on the merits of his claims. Valencia v. City of Springfield, Ill., 883 F.3d 959, 966 (7th
Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has pled a meritorious Eighth Amendment medical
deliberate indifference claim for denial and delay of adequate medical care and diagnostic referrals
for his severe, persistent, and longstanding painful throat and stomach conditions. Plaintiff’s
feeling of an obstruction in his throat and his ongoing pain are indicative of a serious health
condition, and he has not received diagnostic tests or effective treatment. Moreover, the medical
records suggest an ongoing violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights (Docs. 27, 27-1).
Plaintiff’s medical providers recommended in February 2024 that he undergo a
colonoscopy, and in May 2024 an EGD2 was recommended, however, these tests have not yet
been performed (Doc. 27, pp. 6-7). Some delay resulted from the need for a cardiology clearance
and the cancellation of the first cardiology appointment (Doc. 27, p. 6). However, Plaintiff was
cleared by cardiology for these procedures by June 5, 2024, at the latest. Id. His June 7, 2024,
2 Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a test to examine the lining of the esophagus, stomach, and first part of the
small intestine (the duodenum).
Https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/003888.htm#:~:text=Esophagogastroduodenoscopy%20(EGD)%20is%20a%20
test,small%20intestine%20(the%20duodenum). (last visited Oct. 10, 2024)
medical records show that Plaintiff “had an EGD/colonoscopy pending” at that time (Doc. 27, p.
6; Doc. 27-1, p. 220). The same “pending” notation was made on June 24, 2024 (Doc. 27, p. 7;
Doc. 27-1, pp. 224-25). Plaintiff’s most recent medical records, from September 24, 2024, and
October 3, 2024, reflect that he continued to complain of the feeling that something was stuck in
his throat, as well as throat and ear pain (Doc. 27-1, pp. 312-315). Neither the medical records nor
Defendant Barwick’s response suggests that the EGD or colonoscopy have been scheduled, let
alone performed, despite the passage of over four months since these tests were approved and the
persistence of Plaintiff’s serious symptoms.
Based on these undisputed facts, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer
irreparable harm should this Court not issue a preliminary injunction requiring the defendants to
expeditiously schedule him for the tests which Plaintiff’s medical providers approved months ago.
See Hoban v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 731 F. App’x 530, 532 (7th Cir. 2018).
The Court concludes that the balance of equities weighs in favor of a preliminary injunction
in this case. Further, the “public has a strong interest in the provision of constitutionally-adequate
health care to prisoners.” Flynn v. Doyle, 630 F. Supp. 2d 987, 993 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 24, 2009).
See also United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 27 (1960). The Court finds that the requested relief
comports with the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s requirement that injunctive relief be “narrowly
drawn” and “extend no further than necessary to correct the harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65(a) and (d), Defendants are HEREBY
ORDERED to schedule the appointments, within 14 days of the date of this Order, for Plaintiff
to undergo the EGD and colonoscopy procedures at the earliest available dates.
DEFENDANTS ARE FURTHER ORDERED to file a written notice on or before
October 30, 2024, advising the Court of the date(s) and time(s) of Plaintiff’s appointment(s) to
undergo the EGD and colonoscopy; Defendants shall advise the Court in the event of any change
in an appointment date or time, indicating all steps taken to reschedule the appointment and all
steps taken to ensure compliance with this Order.
DEFENDANTS ARE FURTHER ORDERED to file a written notice (attaching all
relevant medical records and documentation) within fourteen (14) days after each EGD/
colonoscopy procedure, advising the Court what, if any, diagnoses result from the procedures, any
recommended treatment plan(s) for Plaintiff, and all steps taken to implement the plan(s) for
treatment of his throat condition, stomach pain, and related symptoms.
Finally, pursuant to MillerCoors LLC v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, 940 F.3d 922
(7th Cir. 2019), the Court will enter the terms of the preliminary injunctive relief set forth above
in a separate document.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 16, 2024
s/ Staci M. Yandle_____
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge