United States District Court, S.D. New York
October 6, 2004.
ABDUL SHARIFF, et al., Plaintiffs,
GLENN S. GOORD, Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: HENRY PITMAN, Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 27, 2004, I denied
without prejudice plaintiffs' application to have their case
added to the list of cases considered by the Court's Pro Bono
Panel. In light of an additional submission made by plaintiffs, I
hereby vacate my Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 27,
2004 and direct that this case be added to the list of cases
considered by the Pro Bono Panel.
By a Notice of Motion that is dated August 25, 2004, was mailed
September 27, 2004 and received by my chambers on October 4,
2004, plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction. In support of
this application, plaintiffs, who are wheelchair-bound
incarcerated inmates, allege that they suffer from a variety of
physical disabilities that require them to use a catheter to
eliminate urine. Plaintiffs also allege that they have been
issued the wrong sized catheters, have been issued an
insufficient number of catheters and have been compelled to reuse single-use catheters without even having hot water to wash the
used catheters. In addition to causing unnecessary pain,
plaintiffs allege that the foregoing incidents have caused them
to suffer from urinary tract infections. In support of their
motion, plaintiffs have submitted a memo from defendant Goodwin
in which he claims that catheters marked "For Single Use Only"
can be reused by the same patient "with proper washing," and
states that "[t]his is the `community standard' nationwide." At
least preliminarily, this practice appears to be inconsistent
with the manufacturer's directions.
At this point, I need not decide whether plaintiffs will be
successful in their action or their motion; the only issue is
whether the action appears to have sufficient merit to warrant
the submission of the case to the Pro Bono Panel. Based on
the allegations in plaintiffs' recently filed motion, I conclude
that plaintiffs have met this threshold and direct that this case
be added to the list of cases considered by the Pro Bono Panel.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.