Turley v. Bedinger et al

Filing 295

ORDER denying 268 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 268 Motion for Protective Order; denying 278 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 5/25/2016. (jcp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GREGORY J. TURLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ALAN UCHTMAN
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 08–cv–007–SCW

ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
Pro-se Plaintiff Gregory Turley filed this claim based on events arising at Menard
Correctional Center. This case has a long procedural history, which the Court will not repeat at
length here, other than to say the case is currently before the Court on Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to
the Eighth Amendment that his “tiny, cramped, poorly ventilated cell, exacerbated by his inability to
leave it for exercise” constitutes an unconstitutional condition of confinement.

(Doc. 194).

Plaintiff’s claim proceeds against Alan Uchtman, Dan Ohalu, Anthony Ramos, Betsy Spiller, Lt.
Waller, Sgt. McDaniel, and Kim Butler (for purposes of injunctive relief only).
On January 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. 268).
Defendants filed no response. On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and Order of Protection. (Doc. 278). Defendants filed a Response on April 18, 2016.
(Doc. 279).
Plaintiff’s first motion seeks injunctive relief against Charles McDaniel, a sergeant at Menard
and Defendant in this case. (Doc. 268, p. 1). Plaintiff alleges that on January 22, 2016, McDaniel
had the law library officer place Plaintiff in seat #50 in the law library, which is directly in front of
the officer’s desk and gate. (Doc. 268, p. 4). Plaintiff asked Officer Mitchell why he had been
1

placed in seat #50 and Mitchell told Plaintiff that McDaniel had asked him to. (Doc. 268, p. 5).
McDaniel then came into the cage and told Plaintiff “I don’t give a fuck about your lawsuits. If you
don’t like sitting in seat #45 or #50, tell me right now and I’ll walk your ass right back out of here
and you’ll never come back!!!” (Doc. 268, p. 5). McDaniel then dated “You keep my name out of
your fuckin’ mouth or I’ll close it for you!!! IS THAT UNDERSTOOD!!?” (Doc. 268, p. 6).
Plaintiff stated “Yes sir.” (Doc. 268, p. 6). McDaniel then walked away. (Doc. 268, p. 6). Plaintiff
seeks an order banning defendants from access to him at Menard and alleges that he has suffered
depression, anxiety, severe headaches, IBS, sever lower left jaw pain, and hearing problems as a
result of abuse suffered at the hands of Menard guards. (Doc. 268, p. 7).
Plaintiff’s second motion for injunctive relief indicates that he filed it in all of his pending
cases in the Southern District.

Plaintiff claims that Jennifer Clendenin and Kimberly Butler

“conspired to create psychological abuse, and to thwart Plaintiff’s legal challenge to his abusive
conditions of confinement.” (Doc. 278, p. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on March 14, 2016
he was moved from the North Upper Cellhouse to the South Lowers Cellhouse. (Doc. 278, p. 3-4).
Plaintiff alleges his new cell is in a windowless area, and the South Lowers scheduled has reduced his
out of cell exercise time from 12 hours to 7 hours; and that Plaintiff has to choose between chapel,
law library, and yard on Wednesdays, when in his old cellhouse, they did not conflict. (Doc. 278, p.
3, 5). Plaintiff requests a court hearing, and ultimately, an order providing him with 5 hours per
week law library access and 15 hours of exercise or more, staged in 5 separate periods. (Doc. 278, p.
9).
Defendants’ response states that Plaintiff’s contentions lack support and that he has failed to
meet his burden on injunctive relief. (Doc. 279).
Injunctions are extraordinary equitable remedies that are to be granted in civil cases only
when specific criteria are clearly met by the movant. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972
2

(1997). The plaintiff must show four elements for an injunction: (1) plaintiff is likely to succeed on
the merits; (2) without an injunction irreparable harm against the plaintiff is likely; (3) the harm likely
to be suffered by the plaintiff would be greater than the harm the injunction would inflict on
defendants; and (4) the injunction is in the public interest. Id. The greater the likelihood that the
plaintiff will succeed on the merits of the case, the less significant the likely harm against the plaintiff
must be in relation to the harm the defendant will likely suffer due to an injunction. Id. According
to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) injunctions in the prison context must be “narrowly
drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the court finds requires preliminary
relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626. Courts
may issue preliminary injunctions only on notice to the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). A
Temporary Restraining Order may be issued without notice
only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in
writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be
required.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits because his requests
for injunctive relief are not related to claims in this case. Plaintiff’s claims in this case relate to cell
size, specifically cell size in the North 1 general population cell house. Plaintiff’s first motion for
injunctive relief requests a restraining order against Defendant McDaniel based on a single incident
wherein McDaniel yelled and cursed at Plaintiff in the law library. The Court doubts that Plaintiff’s
claims here even state a claim upon which relief could be granted. DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607,
612 (7th Cir. 2000) (“Standing alone, simple verbal harassment does not constitute cruel and
3

unusual punishment, deprive a prisoner or a protected liberty interest or deny a prisoner
equal protection of the laws.”); but see Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356, 358-59 (7th Cir. 2015)
(finding that while most verbal harassment does not rise to the level of cruel and unusual
punishment, some might). Additionally, Plaintiff does not allege and the Court sees no evidence
that Plaintiff has been denied access to the courts based on McDaniel’s conduct. But putting the
validity of Plaintiff’s claims aside, Plaintiff’s Complaint states no claim on which a Court could grant
a restraining order against McDaniel keeping him away from Plaintiff because Plaintiff’s only claim
is a conditions of confinement claim. Because Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief outside of the scope of
the Complaint, the Court DENIES the injunction. (Doc. 268).
Plaintiff’s second motion suffers from the same problem. Plaintiff’s complaint addresses the
issue of cell size in the North 1 general cellhouse. Plaintiff’s second request for relief is premised on
the fact that he was moved to the South Lowers cellhouse. Plaintiff has no claim for relief regarding
the South Lowers cellhouse in this case. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief asks for increased law
library time and increased recreation time beyond he was receiving before the allegedly retaliatory
conduct occurred. There is no basis for the Court to provide this relief because Plaintiff does not
have a claim based on only getting 7 hours of recreation or having to choose between activities in
this case. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue the matter further, the proper step would be to file new
lawsuits. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request for relief here is unrelated to the remaining
claim in this lawsuit and that therefore, Plaintiff has no chance of success on the merits, Plaintiff’s
second request for injunctive relief is DENIED. (Doc. 278).
DISPOSITION
Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief are DENIED. (Doc. 268) (Doc. 278).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: May 25, 2016

/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
4

United States Magistrate Judge

5