Chesser v. Walton et al

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, finding as moot 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Zachary Chesser and 16 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Zachary Chesser. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 9/26/2013. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ZACHARY CHESSER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-cv-1198-JPG-PMF

J.S. WALTON, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court for case management purposes. The Court notes that
plaintiff Zachary Chesser included a request for a preliminary and permanent injunction in his
original complaint, both of which were construed as motions (Docs. 1 & 2). He has since filed
another motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 16) and an amended motion for preliminary
injunction (Doc. 21). He has also filed an amended complaint (Doc. 19) in which he seeks
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.
Upon review of the file, it appears that the request docketed as a motion for a permanent
injunction (Doc. 2) is really no more than a prayer for a relief in the form of a permanent
injunction. This prayer for relief has been superseded by the prayer for permanent injunctive
relief in the Amended Complaint (Doc. 19). See Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 735 (7th Cir.
1999) (amended pleading supersedes original pleading and is the operative pleading in the case).
The motion for a permanent injunction contained in the complaint (Doc. 2) is therefore MOOT.
Similarly, to the extent that the request for preliminary injunctive relief contained in the
original complaint constitutes a motion (Doc. 2), for the reasons stated above, that motion has been
superseded by the Amended Complaint and its request for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 19).
Additionally, the original request in the complaint was fleshed out in the motion for a preliminary

injunction (Doc. 16), but that motion was later revised in an amended motion for a preliminary
injunction (Doc. 21) and its supporting memorandum (Doc. 22). In sum, the motion for
preliminary injunction contained in the complaint (Doc. 2) and the later motion for preliminary
injunction (Doc. 16) are MOOT, although verified filings may still be considered as affidavits.
The Court will consider the amended motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 21). The
Court anticipates Magistrate Judge Frazier will hold an evidentiary hearing on that motion at
which time Chesser can present evidence in support of his request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 26, 2013
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2