Norfleet v. Walker et al

Filing 135

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Clerk of Court to mail a copy of Doc. 127 to Norfleet. Court Orders Norfleet to file a response. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 6/30/11. (bkl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARC NORFLEET,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 09-cv-347-JPG-PMF

v.
ROGER E. WALKER, JR.,
Director of IDOC, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Marc Norfleet’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 59) and Petition for 90-Day Emergency Preliminary Injunction
(Doc. 61). In his motions, Norfleet prays for five hours of beneficial meaningful exercise per
week. Norfleet states that this may be accomplished if Lawrence Correctional Center —
where he was incarcerated at the time said motions were filed — obtains ADA-certified
recreation equipment that can be used five hours per week or if Norfleet can be transferred to
Dixon Correctional Center or Big Muddy River Correctional Center for five hours per week.
Before the Court could hold a hearing to determine whether a preliminary injunction
should issue, Defendants filed a supplemental Response (Doc. 127) that stated Norfleet was
transferred from Lawrence to Menard Correctional Center on May 20 and 21, 2011.
Defendants believe this recent transfer effectively moots the instant motions. Although
Norfleet did not respond to Defendants’ mootness argument by June 23 as previously ordered
by the Court, see Doc. 129, it cannot be ignored that Norfleet recently terminated
representation by his appointed counsel because the two were not agreeing on litigation

strategy. Docs. 132, 134.
Being fully advised of the premises, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to mail a
copy of Defendants’ supplemental Response (Doc. 127) to Norfleet. Further, the Court
ORDERS Norfleet to file a response to Defendants’ mootness argument by July 11, 2011.
Norfleet’s response shall be no longer than five pages and shall indicate whether Menard
Correctional Center has ADA-certified recreational equipment and whether Norfleet has been
able to use such equipment or otherwise exercise for five hours per week. If Norfleet does
not file a response, his claim and motions for injunctive relief shall be dismissed and denied
respectively. Defendants shall have up to and including July 15 to file a reply brief that is no
longer than five pages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 30, 2011
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE