Austin v. S.A. Godinez et al

Filing 23

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams, Denying 4 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Andrew C Hruby, Allan K Austin, Granting 22 MOTION to Copy filed by Allan K Austin. Judge Williams shall schedule an evidentiary heari ng as soon as practicable, and issue a report and recommendation as to the disposition of Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 8 ). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a copy of the First Amended Complaint and exhibits (D ocs. 21, 21-1, 21-2, and 21-3). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall prepare for Defendants HODGE and STORM: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 4/15/2013. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ALLAN K. AUSTIN, # N-97670,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
S.A. GODINEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-cv-84-MJR

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court for review of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 21). Plaintiff, an inmate at Lawrence Correctional
Center (“Lawrence”), claims that Defendants have deprived him of his civil rights by their
failure to allow him sufficient time to eat his meals, thus denying him adequate nutrition.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Godinez (Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections) and Hodge (Lawrence Warden) created a policy that shortened
prisoners’ mealtimes to only ten minutes (Doc. 21, p. 4; Doc. 21-1, pp. 8-9). Further, the pattern
and practice of implementing this policy on a day to day basis has resulted in Plaintiff and other
inmates being allowed fewer than ten minutes to eat their food on many occasions. Since April
2011 and continuing to the present, Lawrence inmates, including Plaintiff, are routinely required
by correctional officers to leave the chow hall before they can finish their meals. If inmates take
food out of the dining area, they are subject to disciplinary sanctions. Id. As a result, they must
discard a substantial portion of their food when they are ordered to leave the dining hall. This

Page 1 of 13

deprivation has become “routine practice” and was not the result of any lockdowns or emergency
situations (Doc. 21, p. 5). Plaintiff attaches his records of daily meals from September 2011
through August 2012, to document the starting and ending times allowed by officers (Doc. 21-2,
pp. 1-33).
Plaintiff cannot afford to buy food from the commissary to supplement his diet
(Doc. 21-1, p. 8). He has suffered substantial weight loss and other adverse health effects,
including hunger pains, migraines, weakness, tiredness, and diminished health and muscle mass
(Doc. 21, p. 4). He complained to Defendants Hodge and Storm (assistant warden) about the
limited time for meals and his health problems, and they responded by telling him to be the first
person in line in order to have more time to eat (Doc. 21, pp. 5-6). He asserts that Defendants
Godinez and Hodge have been “placed on notice” of the practice of curtailing mealtimes to
fewer than ten minutes, but they have failed to remedy the problem (Doc. 21, p. 5). Plaintiff
includes with his complaint copies of numerous letters to Defendant Hodge from fellow inmate
Larry Harris, who has a pending case in this Court (Harris v. Hodge, Case No. 11-cv-973-JPGPMF) as well as copies of Harris’ grievances (Doc. 21-1, pp. 12-20; Doc. 21-3, pp. 1-14).
Plaintiff’s own affidavit states that on an unspecified occasion, he asked
Defendant C/O McCormick and C/O Horton 1 why he was being rushed out of the dining hall
(Doc. 21-1, pp. 8-9). Defendant McCormick stated that he clears the dining room when he
thinks inmates have had enough time to eat. Defendant Horton responded that he was just doing
as he was told. Based on these statements, Plaintiff concluded that the supervisor/Lieutenant in
charge was responsible for determining when inmates would be dismissed from the chow hall.
As relief, Plaintiff seeks damages, declaratory relief, and a “preliminary and

1

The affidavit does not indicate whether this conversation involved Defendant John Horton or Defendant
Kevin Horton, each of whom is described as a “C/O” (Correctional Officer) (Doc. 21, pp. 3-4).
Page 2 of 13

permanent injunction allotting at least 15 minutes to finish meals” (Doc. 21, p. 6).
Merits Review of the Amended Complaint
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to conduct a prompt threshold
review of the complaint. Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff
has articulated a colorable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Hodge and Storm for
deprivation of adequate nutrition. However, the complaint fails to state a claim against the
remaining Defendants, and they shall be dismissed without prejudice for the following reasons.
Plaintiff’s allegations suffice to indicate, at this preliminary stage of the litigation,
that he suffered an objectively serious deprivation of adequate food over a sustained period of
time. However, a prison official cannot be held liable for even an objectively serious deprivation
unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the inmate’s health or safety. See
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981).
Plaintiff states that he personally discussed the problem of inadequate nutrition
with Defendants Hodge and Storm, who allegedly made and implemented the ten-minute meal
policy. However, he does not indicate how or by whom Defendant Godinez was “placed on
notice” of the mealtime practices, and his generalized allegations do not suggest that Defendant
Godinez knew about Plaintiff’s specific complaints or was deliberately indifferent to any risk to
Plaintiff’s health (Doc. 1, p. 5). While Defendant Godinez may have reviewed Plaintiff’s
grievance(s), this alone would not result in him becoming liable for any misconduct committed
by those Defendants under his supervision. In order to be held individually liable, a defendant
must be “personally responsible for the deprivation of a constitutional right.”

Sanville v.

McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d
612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001)). The amended complaint does not indicate personal involvement by

Page 3 of 13

Defendant Godinez in the actions which resulted in the alleged constitutional deprivation, thus he
shall be dismissed without prejudice.
As to the Correctional Officer Defendants (listed in Doc. 21, p. 3, ¶ 10, and p. 5,
¶ 20), Plaintiff alleges that “on at least one occasion” Defendants Adams, Adamson, Allen,
Arnold, Charles Ash, Nancy Ash, Bradley Ausbrook, Leo Ausbrook, Ayres, Bach, Berry, Robert
Boose, Scott Boose, Bootman, Sarah Brake, Timothy Brake, Breeden, Greg Brooks, Randell
Brooks, Buchner, Buttrum, Bosecker, Byford, Carter, Chenault, Clodfelter, Cloughfield, Creech,
Crooks, Daniel, Dellinger, Dixon, Jeremy Downen, Shane Downen, Davidson, Michael Dunlap,
Stoney Dunlap, Dunkin, Eckelberry, Edwards, Erwin, Brian Eubank, Bruce Eubank, Faith,
Fisher, Fitzgerald, Jason Freeman, Matthew Freeman, Garrett, Givens, Goble, Gray, Hanson,
Hargett, Harmon, Harrington, Jacob Harris, Hartrich, Hartman, Heifner, Henry, Henton, Hicks,
Holtz, John Horton, Kevin Horton, Hough, Barney Hughes, Michael Hughes, Derek Hundley,
Eric Hundley, C/O Hundley, Hutcheson, Jackman, Marcus Jenkins, T. Jenkins, Kelly Johnson,
Kevin T. Johnson, Kemp, Kelsey, Kidd, Kidwell, Leaf, Line, Lockhart, Majors, Marshoff, Leif
McCarthy, Matthew McCarthy, McCormick, Messerly, Mensing, Miller, Mitchell, Monicle,
Milf, Murbarger, Musgrave, Mullin, Perdue, Perry, Raymer, Roush, Rucker, Rue, Rush, Loyd
Sanders, Nathan Sanders, Shawn Sanders, Scherer, Sarles, Schoon, Schwarzlose, Thomas
Simmons, Walter Simmons, Simms, Simpson, Sloan, Spade, Jimmy Stanley, Robert Stanley,
Stephens, Stone, Andy Stout, Denny Stout, Jeffrey Stroud, C/O Stroud, Stuck, Summers, Charles
Tanner, Jerry Tanner, Tarr, Tate, Vines, Volk, Gary Walker, Jimmy Walker, Webb, Webber,
Whelon, Darren Williams, James Williams, Vernon Williams, Willis, Williamson, John Wilson,
Joshua Wilson, Steven Wilson, Welsh, and Yarnell “deprived plaintiff and all prisoners at
Lawrence of the 10 minutes to finish meals, food, and adequate nutrition” (Doc. 21, p. 5, ¶ 20).

Page 4 of 13

Again, there is no allegation that any of these Defendants was made aware of a
serious threat to Plaintiff’s health due to the insufficient time to eat, so as to establish the
requisite subjective intent to sustain a deliberate indifference claim. Furthermore, the amended
complaint does not allege that any Defendant named in this paragraph was responsible for
curtailing Plaintiff’s mealtime on more than one date. An individual Defendant who denies an
inmate adequate food on one, two, or a similarly small number of occasions over time, does not
impose a deprivation of constitutional significance.

In evaluating a claim for inadequate

nutrition, a district court “must assess the amount and duration of the deprivation” of food. Reed
v. McBride, 178 F.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 1999). See also Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 214 n.3
(5th Cir. 1998) (noting that denial of one out of every nine meals is not a constitutional
violation). While Plaintiff may have been deprived of food over a long period of time due to the
combined actions of the named officers, the number or frequency of incidents attributable to any
individual Defendant Correctional Officer listed in paragraph 20 of the amended complaint
cannot be ascertained from this pleading. The allegation that any single Defendant deprived
Plaintiff of food “on at least one occasion” does not state a constitutional claim against that
individual.
Accordingly, the following Defendants shall be dismissed from the action without
prejudice at this time: Adams, Adamson, Allen, Arnold, Charles Ash, Nancy Ash, Bradley
Ausbrook, Leo Ausbrook, Ayres, Bach, Berry, Robert Boose, Scott Boose, Bootman, Sarah
Brake, Timothy Brake, Breeden, Greg Brooks, Randell Brooks, Buchner, Buttrum, Bosecker,
Byford, Carter, Chenault, Clodfelter, Cloughfield, Creech, Crooks, Daniel, Dellinger, Dixon,
Jeremy Downen, Shane Downen, Davidson, Michael Dunlap, Stoney (spelled Storey on the
Court Docket Sheet) Dunlap, Dunkin, Eckelberry, Edwards, Erwin, Brian Eubank, Bruce

Page 5 of 13

Eubank, Faith, Fisher, Fitzgerald, Jason Freeman, Matthew Freeman, Garrett, Givens, Goble,
Gray, Hanson, Hargett, Harmon, Harrington, Jacob Harris, Hartrich, Hartman, Heifner, Henry,
Henton, Hicks, Holtz, John Horton, Kevin Horton, Hough, Barney Hughes, Michael Hughes,
Derek Hundley, Eric Hundley, C/O Hundley (spelled Huntley on the Court Docket Sheet),
Hutcheson, Jackman, Marcus Jenkins, T. Jenkins, Kelly Johnson, Kevin T. Johnson, Kemp,
Kelsey, Kidd, Kidwell, Leaf, Line, Lockhart, Majors, Marshoff, Leif McCarthy, Matthew
McCarthy, McCormick, Messerly, Mensing, Miller, Mitchell, Monicle, Milf, Murbarger,
Musgrave, Mullin, Perdue, Perry, Raymer, Roush, Rucker, Rue, Rush, Loyd Sanders, Nathan
Sanders, Shawn Sanders, Scherer, Sarles, Schoon, Schwarzlose, Thomas Simmons, Walter
Simmons, Simms, Simpson, Sloan, Spade, Jimmy Stanley, Robert Stanley, Stephens, Stone,
Andy Stout, Denny (spelled Danny on the Court Docket Sheet) Stout, Jeffrey Stroud, C/O Stroud
(spelled Strond on the Court Docket Sheet), Stuck, Summers, Charles Tanner, Jerry Tanner,
Tarr, Tate, Vines, Volk, Gary Walker, Jimmy Walker, Webb, Webber, Whelon (spelled Whelan
on the Court Docket Sheet), Darren Williams, James Williams, Vernon Williams, Willis,
Williamson, John Wilson, Joshua Wilson, Steven Wilson, Welsh, and Yarnell.
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Hall, Lisa Harris, and Charles Lynch are
Majors, and are “responsible for operations and conditions at Lawrence and for supervising
subordinates” (Doc. 21, p. 3, ¶ 7). He makes the identical statement regarding Defendants
Bayler, Boldrey, Brown, Dallas, Erickson, Goins, Donald Harris, Jennings, Lamb, McCorkle,
Ochs, Ray, Sorenson, Stafford, Stuck, 2 and Vaughn, who are Lieutenants (Doc. 21, p. 3, ¶ 8),
and regarding Defendants Burns, Carroll, Sherri Lynch, and McAllister (Doc. 21, p. 3, ¶ 8), who
are Sergeants. He makes no other factual allegations against these Defendants in the remainder

2

Defendant Thomas Stuck is also listed among the Correctional Officers in paragraphs 10 and 20 of the
complaint.
Page 6 of 13

of the amended complaint, to indicate either that they had the necessary subjective intent to
deprive Plaintiff of adequate nutrition, or that they caused him to stop eating before he could
finish consuming sufficient food on even one occasion. Therefore, at this time Defendants
Bayler, Boldrey, Brown, Burns, Carroll, Dallas, Erickson, Goins, Hall, Donald Harris, Lisa
Harris, Jennings, Lamb, Charles Lynch, Sherri Lynch, McAllister, McCorkle, Ochs, Ray,
Sorenson, Stafford, Stuck, and Vaughn shall also be dismissed from the action without prejudice.
The amended complaint contains no allegations against Defendants Benjamin
Brake, Eric Drummond, Kevin [no middle initial] Johnson, Oswalt, or against any John Does or
Jane Does. Plaintiffs are required to associate specific defendants with specific claims, so that
defendants are put on notice of the claims brought against them and so they can properly answer
the complaint. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); FED. R. CIV. P.
8(a)(2). Where a plaintiff has not included a defendant in his statement of the claim, the
defendant cannot be said to be adequately put on notice of which claims in the complaint, if any,
are directed against him. Furthermore, merely invoking the name of a potential defendant is not
sufficient to state a claim against that individual. See Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th
Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Defendants Benjamin Brake, Drummond, Kevin [no middle initial]
Johnson, Oswalt, and the John Doe and Jane Doe Defendants will be dismissed from this action
without prejudice.
Pending Motions
Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 3) shall be referred to
United States Magistrate Judge Williams for further consideration.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Action and Certification (Doc. 4) is DENIED. See
Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (holding it would be plain error to

Page 7 of 13

permit imprisoned pro se litigant to represent his fellow inmates in a class action). The Federal
Rules permit class actions to be maintained only if the class representative (in this case the pro se
Mr. Austin) “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, FED. R. CIV. P.
23(a)(4), and “[e]very court that has considered the issue has held that a prisoner proceeding pro
se is inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action.” Lee v.
Gardinez, No. 11-cv-570-GPM, 2012 WL 143612, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 18, 2012) (quoting
Craig v. Cohn, 80 F. Supp. 2d 944, 946 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted)).
Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) or for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 8). A TRO is an order issued without notice to the
party to be enjoined that may last no more than 14 days. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(2). A TRO may
issue without notice only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a 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)(1).
As to the request for a preliminary injunction, the United States Supreme Court
has emphasized that a Apreliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that
should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.@
Christian Legal Soc’y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 870 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting Mazurek v.
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (emphasis in original)). In considering whether to grant
injunctive relief, a district court must 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.

Page 8 of 13

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. Teamsters Local Unions Nos. 75 and 200 v. Barry Trucking, 176 F.3d
1004, 1011 (7th Cir. 1999). Accord Judge v. Quinn, 612 F.3d 537, 546 (7th Cir. 2010); Pro=s
Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. v. City of Country Club Hills, 589 F.3d 865, 872-73 (7th Cir. 2009).
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of any of Plaintiff=s other claims for
relief, the Court is of the opinion that a TRO should not be issued in this matter. Plaintiff=s
allegations do not set forth specific facts demonstrating the likelihood of immediate and
irreparable harm before Defendants can be heard.
However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1(c), Plaintiff’s
request for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 8) is hereby REFERRED to United States Magistrate
Judge Williams for further consideration, following service on the Defendants. Judge Williams
shall schedule an evidentiary hearing as soon as practicable, and issue a report and
recommendation as to the disposition of this motion. Any motions filed after the date of this
Order that relate to the request for injunctive relief or seek leave to amend the complaint are also
hereby REFERRED to Judge Williams.
Finally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Copy (Doc. 22) requests that he be mailed a
complete copy of the First Amended Complaint and exhibits (Doc. 21). He explains that due to
the prison library being closed for several weeks, he had no opportunity to make copies of these
documents before he had to submit them to meet this Court’s filing deadline of March 22, 2013.

Page 9 of 13

Due to these circumstances beyond Plaintiff’s control, the motion is GRANTED. However,
Plaintiff is ADVISED that ordinarily, the District Clerk will mail paper copies of any document
to a party only upon prepayment of the required fee, which is $.50 per page. See 28 U.S.C. §
1914(b); §(4) of The Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees. In the future, no copies shall be
provided without full prepayment. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a copy of the First
Amended Complaint and exhibits (Docs. 21, 21-1, 21-2, and 21-3).
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following Defendants are DISMISSED
from this action without prejudice for failure to state a constitutional claim against them:
Godinez, Adams, Adamson, Allen, Arnold, Charles Ash, Nancy Ash, Bradley Ausbrook, Leo
Ausbrook, Ayres, Bach, Bayler, Berry, Boldrey, Robert Boose, Scott Boose, Bootman, Benjamin
Brake, Sarah Brake, Timothy Brake, Breeden, Greg Brooks, Randell Brooks, Brown, Buchner,
Burns, Buttrum, Bosecker, Byford, Carroll, Carter, Chenault, Clodfelter, Cloughfield, Creech,
Crooks, Dallas, Daniel, Davidson, Dellinger, Dixon, Jeremy Downen, Shane Downen,
Drummond, Michael Dunlap, Stoney (spelled Storey on the Court Docket Sheet) Dunlap,
Dunkin, Eckelberry, Edwards, Erickson, Erwin, Brian Eubank, Bruce Eubank, Faith, Fisher,
Fitzgerald, Jason Freeman, Matthew Freeman, Garrett, Givens, Goble, Goins, Gray, Hall,
Hanson, Hargett, Harmon, Harrington, Donald Harris, Jacob Harris, Lisa Harris, Hartrich,
Hartman, Heifner, Henry, Henton, Hicks, Holtz, John Horton, Kevin Horton, Hough, Barney
Hughes, Michael Hughes, Derek Hundley, Eric Hundley, C/O Hundley (spelled Huntley on the
Court Docket Sheet), Hutcheson, Jackman, Marcus Jenkins, T. Jenkins, Jennings, Kelly Johnson,
Kevin [no middle initial] Johnson, Kevin T. Johnson, Kemp, Kelsey, Kidd, Kidwell, Lamb, Leaf,
Line, Lockhart, Charles Lynch, Sherri Lynch, Majors, Marshoff, McAllister, Leif McCarthy,

Page 10 of 13

Matthew McCarthy, McCorkle, McCormick, Messerly, Mensing, Miller, Mitchell, Monicle,
Milf, Murbarger, Musgrave, Mullin, Ochs, Oswalt, Perdue, Perry, Ray, Raymer, Roush, Rucker,
Rue, Rush, Loyd Sanders, Nathan Sanders, Shawn Sanders, Scherer, Sarles, Schoon,
Schwarzlose, Thomas Simmons, Walter Simmons, Simms, Simpson, Sloan, Sorenson, Spade,
Stafford, Jimmy Stanley, Robert Stanley, Stephens, Stone, Andy Stout, Denny (spelled Danny on
the Court Docket Sheet) Stout, Jeffrey Stroud, C/O Stroud (spelled Strond on the Court Docket
Sheet), Stuck, Summers, Charles Tanner, Jerry Tanner, Tarr, Tate, Vaughn, Vines, Volk, Gary
Walker, Jimmy Walker, Webb, Webber, Whelon (spelled Whelan on the Court Docket Sheet),
Darren Williams, James Williams, Vernon Williams, Willis, Williamson, John Wilson, Joshua
Wilson, Steven Wilson, Welsh, Yarnell, and the John Does and Jane Does.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall prepare for
Defendants HODGE and STORM: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive
Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons). The Clerk is
DIRECTED to mail these forms, a copy of the complaint, and this Memorandum and Order to
each Defendant’s place of employment as identified by Plaintiff. If a Defendant fails to sign and
return the Waiver of Service of Summons (Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the
forms were sent, the Clerk shall take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that Defendant,
and the Court will require that Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service, to the extent
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
With respect to a Defendant who no longer can be found at the work address
provided by Plaintiff, the employer shall furnish the Clerk with the Defendant’s current work
address, or, if not known, the Defendant’s last-known address. This information shall be used
only for sending the forms as directed above or for formally effecting service.

Page 11 of 13

Any

documentation of the address shall be retained only by the Clerk. Address information shall not
be maintained in the court file or disclosed by the Clerk.
Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants (or upon defense counsel once an
appearance is entered), a copy of every pleading or other document submitted for consideration
by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed a certificate stating the
date on which a true and correct copy of the document was served on Defendants or counsel.
Any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the Clerk
or that fails to include a certificate of service will be disregarded by the Court.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to
the complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this action is REFERRED to United States
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams for further pre-trial proceedings, which shall include a
determination on the pending motions for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3) and preliminary
injunction (Doc. 8).
Further, this entire matter shall be REFERRED to United States Magistrate
Judge Williams for disposition, pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), if all
parties consent to such a referral.
If judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment
of costs under § 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs,
notwithstanding that his application to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A).
Plaintiff is ADVISED that at the time application was made under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 for leave to commence this civil action without being required to prepay fees and costs or

Page 12 of 13

give security for the same, the applicant and his or her attorney were deemed to have entered into
a stipulation that the recovery, if any, secured in the action shall be paid to the Clerk of the
Court, who shall pay therefrom all unpaid costs taxed against plaintiff and remit the balance to
plaintiff. Local Rule 3.1(c)(1).
Finally, Plaintiff is ADVISED that he is under a continuing obligation to keep the
Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than 7
days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of this action
for want of prosecution. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 15, 2013

s/ MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

Page 13 of 13