Norfleet v. Walker et al

Filing 144

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER directing Clerk to terminate Walker as a defendnt and add Godinez as a defendant in this case. Telephone Status Conference re 59 and 61 Motions for Preliminary Injuncation, 141 Motion to Inform and 137 Motion for Sanction s set for 8/16/2011 09:00 AM in Benton Courthouse before Judge J. Phil Gilbert, Godinez responsible for placing call to all parties. Clerk of Court directed to mail a copy of 107 with this memorandum and order to Norfleet. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/1/2011. (dka, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARC NORFLEET,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 09-cv-347-JPG-PMF

ROGER E. WALKER, JR.,
Director of IDOC, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Marc Norfleet’s (“Norfleet”)
Response (Doc. 136) to the Court’s Memorandum and Order (Doc. 135) of June 30,
2011.1 Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. 138) thereto. This matter also comes before the
Court on Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 137), to which Norfleet filed a
Response (Doc. 139). Finally, this matter comes before the Court on Norfleet’s Motion
to Inform (Doc. 141).
In his pending Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Docs. 59, 61), Norfleet prays
for five hours of meaningful exercise per week. Norfleet states that this may be
accomplished if Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”) — where he was
incarcerated at the time his motions were filed — obtains ADA-certified recreation

1

Although Norfleet’s response was filed on the docket sheet three days after the July 11
deadline, Doc. 135, p. 2, the Court deems it timely in light of the so-called “mailbox rule.” The
mailbox rule holds that a prisoner “files” a document when he turns it over to a prison official to
be sent to the court. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
1

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 corresponding injunction
should issue, Norfleet was transferred from Lawrence to Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”) on May 20 and 21, 2011.
Defendants believe Norfleet’s recent transfer effectively moots the instant motions
because “[n]one of the Defendants in this case work at, or currently control, anything that
occurs at Menard Correctional Center.” Doc. 138, p. 2., ¶ 2. Meanwhile, Norfleet
believes that a preliminary injunction is still necessary. Norfleet maintains that Menard,
just like Lawrence, lacks ADA-certified equipment. Norfleet also emphasizes that he is
still not getting any exercise whatsoever. Doc. 136, p. 4 (“I’ve been without exercise
going on 5 years.”). This lack of exercise recently caused Norfleet to suffer a mild heart
attack and has led to the deterioration of the joints in his shoulders and arms.
Defendants’ mootness argument nearly carries the day. Indeed, those Defendants
having no control over Menard cannot ensure that the prison obtains the sought
equipment or that Norfleet receives the requested exercise. As such, those Defendants —
Defendants Sherry Benton, Mary Loftin, Sandra Funk, and Edward McNeil — will be
dismissed from Count IV insofar as it prays for injunctive relief. However, the same
cannot be said for S.A. Godinez (“Godinez”), current Director of the Illinois Department

2

of Corrections (“IDOC”).2 Godinez and IDOC surely have the power to satisfy Norfleet’s
requests for relief. While the preliminary injunction motions target the conditions of
Lawrence, the Court cannot ignore the allegation that the conditions of Lawrence and
Menard are the same or that Norfleet’s physical well-being continues to decline. Perhaps
more importantly, it would be highly inequitable to deem Norfleet’s request moot, lest
IDOC and its employees could avoid injunctive liability by endlessly transferring
Norfleet to prisons that have the exact same tangible conditions about which he
complains.
Because there is a significant overlap between the preliminary injunction motions
and Defendants’ motion for sanctions — namely, Defendants request, inter alia, that
Norfleet’s ADA claims be stricken in their entirety — their merits shall be addressed
contemporaneously. The same goes for Norfleet’s motion to inform, which alleges that
Defendants seized from Norfleet’s cell all correspondence related to this case.
Being fully advised of the premises, especially the fact that Norfleet is currently
unrepresented by counsel, the Court ORDERS that a telephone status conference be held
on August 16, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. to preliminarily take up Norfleet’s motions for

2

While the Complaint (Doc. 1) technically names former IDOC director Roger
Walker, Jr. (“Walker”) as a defendant, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) requires
Godinez to be automatically substituted in his stead. (“An action does not abate when a
public officer who is a party in an official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold
office while the action is pending. The officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a
party.”). Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to TERMINATE Walker as a
defendant and ADD Godinez as a defendant in this case.
3

preliminary injunction and motion to inform and Defendants’ motion for sanctions.
Godinez is responsible for placing the call to all parties, including Norfleet, and the
Court.
As a final aside, the Court reminds Norfleet that it is his burden to show why an
injunction should issue. At the very least, Norfleet will need to make a threshold showing
that (1) he has some likelihood of success on the merits, (2) no adequate remedy at law
exists, and (3) he will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. Ferrell v.
U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Dev., 186 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir. 1999). A review of
the Court’s Memorandum and Order (Doc. 107) of March 22, 2011, prior to the status
conference would serve Norfleet well. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of
Court to send Norfleet a copy of that order with this memorandum and order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 1, 2011
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

4