Parker v. Madigan

Filing 36

ORDER denying 33 , Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See written Order. Entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 4/16/2018. (RT, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 16 April, 2018 03:11:53 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER L. PARKER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01478-JES-JEH
v.
GLENN JACKSON and ERNIE
VANZANT,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court is the Plaintiff, Christopher Parker’s, Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
(D. 33). 1 His Motion is DENIED. The entire substance of the Motion is as follows: “Plaintiff
moves this court to enter a preliminary injunction on the application of 730 ILCS 5/3-14-2.5(d) &
(e). A preliminary injunction is necessary to stop the violation of my US Constitutional rights as
soon as possible.” Id.
In order to determine whether preliminary injunctions are warranted, district courts engage
in a sequential, two-phase analysis involving a threshold phase and a balancing phase. Girl Scouts
of Manitou Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S. of Am. Inc., 549 F. 3d 1079, 1085-86 (7th Cir.
2008). In the threshold phase, the party seeking the injunction—here, the Plaintiff—must satisfy
three requirements. Id. at 1086. “First, that absent a preliminary injunction, it will suffer
irreparable harm in the interim period prior to final resolution of its claims. Second, that traditional
legal remedies would be inadequate. And third, that its claim has some likelihood of succeeding
on the merits.” Id. If the movant fails to demonstrate any one of the three threshold requirements,

1

Citations to the Docket in this case are abbreviated as “D. __.”

1

the injunction must be denied, and the Court need not proceed to the balancing phase portion of
the analysis. Id.
In this instance, the Plaintiff fails to establish that any of the required elements are present.
His mere request for a preliminary injunction, quoted in full above, is far too deficient to survive
the threshold phase. As such, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D. 33) is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Entered on April 16, 2018

s/ James E. Shadid_
James E. Shadid
Chief United States District Judge

2