Opinion
Case No. 3:17-cv-1354-NJR-DGW
08-29-2018
NEDRICK JEFFERY HARDY, SR., Plaintiff, v. BRUCE RAUNER, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge :
This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a Report and Recommendation on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff, Nedrick Jeffery Hardy, Sr., on December 14, 2017 (Doc. 2), the Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff on January 9, 2018 (Doc. 6), and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff on June 14, 2018 (Doc. 29). For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED that the motions be DENIED and that the Court adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In this matter, Plaintiff, Nedrick Jeffrey Hardy, Sr., is proceeding on three counts related to the conditions of his confinement including overcrowding, cell size, double-celling, and being housed in cells that are dirty, have limited ventilation, are uncomfortable, and are otherwise objectionable (Doc. 16). In addition to seeking damages and other relief, Plaintiff has filed three motions seeking preliminary injunctive relief.
In the first motion (filed on December 14, 2017), Plaintiff states that he is at risk of harm by being double-celled, which goes to Count 1 of his complaint (Doc. 2). Plaintiff states that he is "similarly situated" to another inmate, Gregory Turley, who Plaintiff believes has been granted injunctive relief, and that he also should not be compelled to share a cell with another inmate at Menard CC, where he is housed. Besides making broad statements that he has been caused harm and that he has been suffering unnecessarily, Plaintiff makes no statement of how double-celling affects him in any specific or immediate way.
Plaintiff is mistaken. As stated in a previous Order, no preliminary injunctive relief has been granted to Gregory Turley in the case he currently has pending in this District, Turley v. Uchtman, 08-cv-7-SCW (Doc. 5).
In the second motion (filed on January 9, 2018), Plaintiff states that his cell "feels like outside" because there is no heat or hot water (Doc. 6). These "extreme cold conditions" caused a "really bad cold that caused him to cough up dark green phlemh [sic] with blood in it." Defendants did not give Plaintiff extra blankets or other things to manage the cold and his blanket and coat were taken away and not returned. It is, of course, summer now and temperatures have been at least above freezing for a number of months (Doc. 31-2, p. 1-2).
Plaintiff's requests for temporary restraining orders, made in conjunction with his requests for preliminary injunctions, were denied (Docs. 5, 8). Plaintiff was further informed that his requests for preliminary injunctive relief would be addressed once Defendants appeared and had the opportunity to respond (Doc. 28). Defendants responded to the motions on June 22, 2018 (Doc. 31). Plaintiff filed a reply brief on August 23, 2018 (Doc. 48).
In his reply brief, Plaintiff briefly complains about the heat in relation to his argument of lack of ventilation. Such a claim was not made in his motion and will not be considered by the Court. --------
In his final motion for injunctive relief (filed on June 14, 2018), Plaintiff seeks an order directing prison officials to allow him to have "contact" visits with his lawyer and for those visits to be confidential. Plaintiff states that he has limited access to his counsel due to jail policies limiting telephone calls and days on which his lawyer can visit him, policies that allow jailors to listen in on conversation between himself and counsel, and the inability to pass papers to his lawyer without them being inspected by correctional officers.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary and drastic remedy" for which there must be a "clear showing" that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (quoting 11A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R MILLER, & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §2948 (5th ed. 1995)). The purpose of such an injunction is "to minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit." Faheem-El v. Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating:
1. a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits;Planned Parenthood v. Commissioner of Indiana State Dept. Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012). As to the first hurdle, the Court must determine whether "plaintiff has any likelihood of success - in other words, a greater than negligible chance of winning." AM General Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 311 F.3d 796, 804 (7th Cir. 2002). Once Plaintiff has met his burden, the Court must weigh "the balance of harm to the parties if the injunction is granted or denied and also evaluate the effect of an injunction on the public interest." Id.; Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 2013). "This equitable balancing proceeds on a sliding-scale analysis; the greater the likelihood of success of the merits, the less heavily the balance of harms must tip in the moving party's favor." Korte, 735 F.3d at 665. In addition, the Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that a preliminary injunction must be "narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm . . . ," and "be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Finally, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), a preliminary injunction would bind only the parties, their officers or agents, or persons in active concert with the parties or their agents.
2. no adequate remedy at law; and
3. irreparable harm absent the injunction.
Plaintiff is not entitled to relief on his first or second requests for injunctive relief because he has made no showing that he would suffer irreparable harm. The likelihood of irreparable harm "takes into account how urgent the need for equitable relief really is." Michigan v. U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers, 667 F.3d 765, 788 (7th Cir. 2011). In his request to be free from double-celling, Plaintiff makes no statement that he would suffer any harm, let alone irreparable harm, that would require resolution prior to the conclusion of this matter on the merits. As to his claim of extreme cold, that claim no longer is urgent such that equitable relief should be granted at this time. The main purpose of a preliminary injunction is "to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held." University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). Plaintiff seeks affirmative action on the part of Defendants: to suspend double celling and revamp the heating system at Menard CC. Such requests for mandatory preliminary injunctive relief are "cautiously viewed and sparingly issued" because they require Defendants to behave differently. Graham v. Med.Mut. of Ohio, 130 F.3d 293, 295 (7th 1997). Plaintiff has not made a clear showing that he is entitled to such extraordinary and sparingly issued relief at this stage of the litigation.
As to his third claim for better access to his lawyer, preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate if the relief sought is related to the underlying claims. See De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 325 U.S. 212, 219-223 (1945) ("A preliminary injunction is always appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally."). A request for injunctive relief that "deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit" would be unjustified. Id. In order to acquire preliminary injunctive relief, Plaintiff must "'establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party's motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.'" Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994)). "Absent that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks authority to grant the relief requested." Id. There is no claim for access to the Courts in this lawsuit. And, Plaintiff is not represented by counsel in this matter such that his ability to communicate effectively with a lawyer is related to this case.
In light of these conclusions, it is unnecessary to discuss whether Plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits or whether there is an adequate remedy at law. It is likewise unnecessary to balance the equities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief by DENIED (Docs. 2, 6, and 29) and that the Court adopt the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law. DATED: August 29, 2018
/s/
DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and SDIL-LR 73.1(b), any party may serve and file written OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within fourteen (14) days after service. Failure to file such OBJECTIONS shall result in a waiver of the right to appeal all issues, both factual and legal, which are addressed in the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd. and Joseph Sclafani, 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
You are not to file an appeal as to the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. An appeal is inappropriate until after the District Judge issues an Order either affirming or reversing the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the U.S. Magistrate Judge.