Knox v. Powers et al

Filing 71

ORDER, DENYING AS MOOT 24 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Christopher Knox. Because Plaintiff Knox's motion for injunctive relief 24 is moot, the district court has no cause to consider Magistrate Judge Williams' Report and Recommendation 61 . Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 2/8/2013. (mmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER KNOX, #B61090,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. MARVIN POWERS,
CAMILLE ADAMS,
CAROL GEORGE,
LAURA QUALLS,
RHONNA MEDLIN,
JULIE KLIEN,
KATHY BUTLER,
GRACY HART,
DELORES HUMELE,
HEATHER MEADS,
CLAUDIA LESLIE,
MERILY MERTON,
LAKESHA BAKER-CAMBY,
SHELVY DUNN,
KRISTY WATSON, and
NIGEL VINYARD,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12–cv–0624–MJR–SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Christopher Knox, who is in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that
health care providers at Tamms Correctional Center were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs (Doc. 3-2).

Before the Court is Plaintiff Knox’s motion for a temporary

restraining order and/or preliminary injunction (Doc. 24; see also Docs. 38, 56), and the Report
and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams, recommending that Knox’s
motion be denied in all respects (Doc. 61).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule

73.1(b), Knox has filed an objection to Judge Williams’ recommendation (Doc. 69).
1

Background and Procedural Synopsis
Plaintiff Knox, has been housed at Pontiac Correctional Center since
approximately December 26, 2012. Prior to that time, he was housed at Tamms Correctional
Center. Plaintiff claims that Defendants, who are all health care providers at Tamms, were
deliberately indifferent to a serious medical condition, “an untreated mental illness which causes
him to self-mutilate himself [sic] by inserting foreign objects into his uretha [sic].” He alleges
that on November 9, 2010, he inserted an ink pen into his urethra, thereby blocking the urinary
channel and causing severe pain and bleeding. According to Plaintiff, each defendant refused to
give him medical treatment, failed to accurately document his complaints and falsified medical
records. He also alleges that, without anesthesia and without his consent, Dr. Powers used a 1520 inch-long surgical tool to perform a surgical procedure on him that actually moved the foreign
object further up the urethra. Plaintiff also claims that all defendants and prison officials
conspired, and continue to conspire, to deny him proper medical treatment.
On August 29, 2012, Knox moved for a temporary restraining order and/or
preliminary injunction because he continues to suffer because the pen remains in his urethra and
Defendants have still not treated his condition. Plaintiff offers a diagnostic and treatment plan,
which includes being seen by a specialist—a certified urologist. On October 12, 2012, United
States Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams commenced a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, but the
hearing was continued to allow for the receipt of additional evidence. A second hearing was
conducted October 24, 2012. Additional documentary evidence was also received from Plaintiff
after the hearing. The evidence presented included Plaintiff’s testimony, Dr. Powers’ affidavit,
and voluminous medical records and grievances.

2

On November 6, 2012, Judge Williams issued a report and recommendation (Doc.
61). Judge Williams found that, although Plaintiff Knox had a history of inserting plastic ink pen
refills into his penis (without the metal tip), Dr. Powers’ multiple examinations have not revealed
an object in Plaintiff’s penis, and multiple urine tests have not indicated any infection or blood
indicative of a foreign object in the body.

Two of five urine samples collected between

November 12, 2009, and January 26, 2011, included blood, but Dr. Powers noted that those two
were un-witnessed samples and could have contained blood from Plaintiff’s gums. Powers also
noted that Knox subsequently refused to provide witnessed urine samples on several occasions.
Knox did not make any complaints to Dr. Powers for a full 11 month period, until
December 1, 2011, when he again complained that he had folded a pen tube into a “v” and
inserted it into his penis “v” first. According to Dr. Powers, palpation and a urine sample did not
indicate that there was a foreign object in Plaintiff’s penis; there was no blood, and he was able
to urinate adequately. A second exam and urine test just over one week later did not indicate any
problem.
Plaintiff renewed his complaints again in June 2012, and again an exam and urine
analysis did not indicate there was a foreign body present. Another exam and test in September
2012 were negative. Although Plaintiff demands an x-ray of his penis, Dr. Powers will not
authorize another x-ray unless there is some clinical indication of a foreign object, because
Plaintiff has already had 11 x-rays in the past due to his history of inserting objects into his
urethra.
Judge Williams concluded that there was no evidence supporting Plaintiff Knox’s
assertion that he had a foreign object in his urethra; therefore, there was no serious medical
condition that required treatment, no basis for a claim of continued deliberate indifference, and

3

no need for immediate diagnosis and care—particularly since Knox had been examined and
tested numerous times. Consequently, Judge Williams recommended denying Plaintiff’s motion
for injunctive relief in all respects.
Plaintiff’s Objections
Plaintiff has filed an objection to Judge Williams’ report and recommendation.
Knox reiterates his basic assertion about the pen tube in his urethra, and he further asserts:
[T]he Court should deny the report and recommendations of the magistrate
judge, because since plaintiff has been in Pontiac C/C, the plaintiff has
received proper treatment and x-rays revealed a foreign body in [his]
uretha [sic], and it has been removed—plaintiff [sic] motion for TRO and
preliminary injunction should be granted.
Doc. 69, p. 5.
Analysis and Conclusion
In accord with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b),
Local Rule 73.1(b) of the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and Govas v.
Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992), a district judge will undertake de novo review of
the portions of a report to which specific objection was made. “Specific” refers only to the issue
for which review is sought; no legal or factual basis for the objection is required. Johnson v.
Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 1999). Thus, Knox’s objection is sufficient to
trigger de novo review. The Court may accept, reject or modify the recommended decision, or
recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); ILSD Local
Rule 73.1(b); Willis v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 F.3d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1999).
Although de novo review has been triggered, no further analysis is required due to
Plaintiff Knox’s assertion that a foreign object has in fact been located and removed from his
penis. A request for injunctive relief becomes moot when a defendant discontinues the conduct
4

in dispute, or when a court can no longer award meaningful relief. See Aslin v. Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., __F.3d __, 2013 WL 11869 at * 2-3 (7th Cir. Jan. 3, 2013).
Since Knox filed his motion for injunctive relief, and since Judge Williams entered his report and
recommendation, Knox has been transferred to a different prison facility and he is being treated
by different medical personnel. More important, Knox reports that he has received the treatment
he was requesting. Therefore, Plaintiff Knox’s motion for a temporary restraining order and/or
preliminary injunction (Doc. 24) is DENIED AS MOOT. Of course, Plaintiff’s claims against
the various defendants shall proceed, and this court offers no opinion regarding Judge Williams’
report and recommendation, or proposed findings of fact.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 8, 2013
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5