Hall v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 73

ORDER denying 72 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Motion for TRO which Court construes as a motion to amend his Complaint to add injunctive relief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on 11/29/11. (anj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL HALL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SUPERVISOR
CLARK,

BENDOFF

and

MR.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10–cv–214–MJR–SCW

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILLIAMS, Magistrate Judge:
Before the Court is a Plea/Motion (Doc. 72) filed by Plaintiff Hall. The Court notes that
the motion is seven pages and often confusing and hard to understand. While it is not entirely clear to
the Court what relief Plaintiff is seeking in his motion, it appears that Plaintiff seeks to amend his
Complaint in order to add a request for injunctive relief. The Court finds several issues with Plaintiff’s
motion. The Court first notes that if Plaintiff is indeed seeking to amend his Complaint, he has utterly
failed to file the Local Rules as to amending a Complaint. Plaintiff has not submitted a proposed
Amended Complaint as required by the Local Rules. Further, Plaintiff seems to seek injunctive relief
against individuals, including all IDOC employees and Ms. Paula Rich, Ms. Michelle R. Clark, and Mr.
Delong, who, although Plaintiff lists them as Defendants, are not currently parties to the case, but at
no point in his motion does he request leave to add these individuals as parties to his Complaint. Thus,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
Even if Plaintiff is merely seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order
rather than seeking to amend his Complaint and add a request for injunctive relief, Plaintiff’s motion
still fails. A TRO may issue without notice

only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or 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).
In considering whether to grant injunctive relief, a district court is obligated to weigh
the relative strengths and weaknesses of a plaintiff’s claims in light of a five-part test that has long been
part of the Seventh Circuit’s jurisprudence. Specifically, a plaintiff must establish: (1) that there is a
reasonable or substantial likelihood that he would succeed on the merits; (2) that there is no adequate
remedy at law; (3) that absent an injunction, he will suffer irreparable harm; (4) that the irreparable harm
suffered by plaintiff in the absence of the injunctive relief will outweigh the irreparable harm that
defendants will endure were the injunction granted; and (5) that the public interest would be served by
an injunction. T e am s te rs Lo c al Un io n s No s . 75 an d 200 v . B arry T ru c kin g , 176 F.3d 1004, 1011
(7th Cir. 1999); Girl Sc o u ts o f Man ito u Co u n c il, In c . v . Girl Sc o u ts o f USA, In c ., 549 F.3d 1079,
1086 (7th Cir. 2008) (recently setting forth a threshold showing of the first three prongs and a
balance of the harms should the party survive the threshold inquiry).
The Court is of the opinion that neither a TRO nor a preliminary injunction should be
entered in this case. While Plaintiff says that he can show, by video, that he will suffer an irreparable
harm, he is not set out what that harm might be. He only states that he can show if allowed to appear
by video, which is not enough in this case. Plaintiff has failed to even set out what time of harm he will
suffer without the injunction. Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.
Thus, the Court finds that a TRO or preliminary injunction is not appropriate in this case.1

1

Even if Plaintiff had tried to offer some facts to meet the standard for a TRO or
preliminary injunction, the Court would still be reluctant to grant such relish, as federal courts must
exercise equitable restraint when asked to take over the administration of a prison, something that is
best left to correctional officials and their staff.
Page 2 of 3

As a final note, the Court points out that Plaintiff only requested counsel at the very
beginning of this case, but that counsel was denied because he had not met the threshold burden of
demonstrating that he had made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel on his own (Doc. 19).
However, in reading several of Plaintiff’s most recent motions, it is clear to the Court that Plaintiff is
having trouble presenting his legal arguments adequately to the Court. Thus, the Court invites Plaintiff
to again file a motion to appoint counsel once he has met his threshold burden of making a reasonable
attempt to obtain counsel. In filing a subsequent motion to appoint counsel, the Court DIRECTS
Plaintiff to (1) contact at least THREE attorneys regarding representation in this case prior to filing
a motion for appointment; (2) include in the motion the name and addresses of the three attorneys he
contacted; and (3) if available, attach the letters from the attorneys who declined representation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 29, 2011.
/s/ Stephen C. Williams
STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3