Hammond v. Rector et al

Filing 124

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ADOPTS the R & R (Doc. 113 ) and DENIES Hammonds motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 107 ). Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 7/24/2014. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SHAD HAMMOND,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 12-cv-00737-JPG-PMF

ANGEL RECTOR, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the motion for emergency preliminary injunction
filed by the plaintiff. (Doc. 107). Defendants have responded to the motion. (Doc. 108). For the
following reasons this court ADOPTS the R & R and DENIES the Plaintiff’s motion.
I.

R & R Standard
The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are
made. The Court has discretion to conduct a new hearing and may consider the record before the
magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence deemed necessary. Id. “If no objection or
only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear
error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). Because Jackson filed an
objection to the R & R, the Court will undertake a de novo review.
II.

FACTS

The Plaintiff, now at Western Illinois Correctional Center, filed suit against staff at the
Pinckneyville CC alleging that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious

medical needs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, while the Plaintiff was incarcerated at
Pinckneyville. (Doc. 15).
The plaintiff has alleged that this litigation began when the Defendants at Pinckneyville were
indifferent to his “claims of pain in his hip, pelvis, knee, shoulder, neck, and later in [his] left
wrist, hand, and elbow . . . .” (Doc. 107). Further, the Plaintiff explains that this pain and
subsequent treatment has been ongoing for about four years from November 2009 to June 2012.
Id. Despite this ongoing treatment with medication, special permits for accommodation, and
bandages, his condition has only continued to deteriorate and has become “debilitating.” Id.
After initially filing suit, Plaintiff seeks an emergency preliminary injunction asking this court to
order the Defendants, at Pinckneyville, to arrange a consultative evaluation with a neurologist, as
well as instructions to follow all recommendations that the neurologist might provide regarding
diagnosis and treatment. Id.
Plaintiff was transferred from Pinckneyville Correction Center in July, 2012. Following a
brief stint at Menard, the Plaintiff was taken to and remains at Western Illinois Correctional
Center (Western).
III.

ANALYSIS
A court may order injunctive relief in a civil action regarding prison conditions. 18

U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).
Preliminary injunctive relief 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. The court shall give
substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a
criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief and shall respect the
principles of comity . . . in tailoring any preliminary relief.
Id. Preliminary injunctive relief is designed “to minimize the hardship to the parties pending the
ultimate resolution of the lawsuit.” Platinum Home Mortgage Corp. v. Platinum Fin. Group

Inc., 149 F.3d 722, 726 (7th Cir. 1998). A party seeking a preliminary injunction must make a
threshold showing that (1) it has some likelihood of success on the merits, (2) no adequate
remedy at law exists, and (3) it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
Ferrell v. United States Dep’t of Housing and Urban Dev., 186 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir. 1999). If
the moving party is able to establish these three factors, the Court must then balance the harms to
both parties using a “sliding scale” analysis, also taking into consideration the effect that
granting or denying the injunction will have on the public. Id. “[T]he greater the moving party’s
likelihood of prevailing on the merits, the less strongly it must show that the balance of harms
weighs in its favor.” Id. “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be
granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Chicago Dist.
Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. K & I Constr., Inc., 270 F.3d 1060, 1064 (7th Cir. 2001)
(citing Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)); accord Winter v. Natural
Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). “If a prisoner is transferred to another prison, his
request for injunctive relief against officials of the first prison is moot unless ‘he can demonstrate
that he is likely to be retransferred.’” Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 812 (7th Cir. 1996)
(citing Moore v. Thieret, 862 F.2d 148, 150 (7th Cir.1988)). Allegations of a likely retransfer
may not be based on mere speculation. Id.
In Judge Frazier’s original R & R, he goes into an in-depth analysis of the various factors of
a preliminary injunction. Although this court does not disagree with his analysis, we believe the
most compelling factor is that the Defendant no longer has control of the Plaintiff’s treatment
and condition rendering his motion moot.
Turning to the immediate motion, the Plaintiff falls squarely into the rule handed down in
Higgason. In July 2012, Plaintiff was transferred to Menard and subsequently to Western. Upon

the Plaintiff’s transfer the Defendants relinquished control over the Plaintiff and no longer have
any oversight over his continued treatment. Further, the Plaintiff has failed to illustrate any
likelihood that he is headed back to Pinckneyville anytime in the near future.
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R & R (Doc. 113) and DENIES

Hammond’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 107).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 24, 2014

s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE