Shatner v. Atchison et al

Filing 138

ORDER DENYING 120 124 125 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/8/2016. (bak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DARRIN W. SHATNER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL ATCHISON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-CV-599-NJR-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction and the supplements to the motion. (Docs. 120, 124,
125).
Plaintiff Darrin Shatner (“Shatner”) is an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”), and Defendants are IDOC employees. Shatner has been an inmate
at various IDOC correctional facilities since he entered IDOC’s custody in 1993, but the
events that give rise to this litigation occurred in 2012 while he was at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”). Shatner transferred from Menard to another facility in
January 2013 but returned in May 2016 (Doc. 96-1 at 83; Doc. 120 at 1).
On June 23, 2013, Shatner filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1).
The case was previously assigned to Senior District Judge J. Phil Gilbert, who screened
Shatner’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (see Doc. 9) and allowed Shatner to

Page 1 of 5

proceed in this action on two claims:1
Count 1:

Defendants McDonnough, Dunn, Cowan, Dilday, Atchison,
Harrington, and Godinez confiscated Shatner’s personal
property on August 14, 2012, in retaliation and in violation of
the First Amendment Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses;

Count 2:

Defendants Fedderke and Nagel confiscated Shatner’s
personal property on September 15, 2012, in retaliation and
in violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise clause.

On September 28, 2016, the Court granted partial summary judgment and
dismissed Defendants Harrington, Atchison, and Godinez because they were not
personally involved in any allegedly unconstitutional conduct (see Doc. 128). At that
time the Court also dismissed Defendant Nagel because Shatner withdrew his claims
against him. Counsel was then recruited to assist Shatner at trial on the retaliation and
First Amendment Free Exercise and Free Speech claims against Defendants
McDonnough, Dunn, Cowan, Dilday, and Fedderke. As set forth above and in the
Court’s September 28 Memorandum and Order, those claims relate to the confiscation of
Shatner’s personal property at Menard in September 2012 (Id).
On May 31, 2016, Shatner filed a motion for injunctive relief, which he
supplemented on July 12 and July 26, 2016.
BACKGROUND
According to the Shatner’s motion, the following events occurred earlier this year:
On May 11, 2016, correctional officers searched Shatner’s bodily cavities upon his arrival
to Menard in a humiliating manner. On May 12, 2016, Defendant Cedric McDonnough
1

Shatner’s claims were severed into multiple separate lawsuits:
Shatner v. Atchison, et al., 3:13-cv-00599 (this case);
Shatner v. New, et al., 3:13-cv-00703 (alleging that the sewing needle charge was retaliatory);
Shatner v. Atchison, et al., 3:13-cv-00704 (deliberate indifference to medical needs claim); and
Shatner v. Dunn, et al., 3:13-cv-00705 (this case was voluntarily withdrawn by Shatner).

Page 2 of 5

said, “Good, you’re back. Now I’m going to fuck you up worse than last time.” On May
14, 2016, Officer Purdon referred to Shatner as the “king of lawsuits” and a “devil
worshipper” and denied Shatner his property upon his transfer. On May 19, 2016, when
Shatner went to retrieve his property and informed Officer LaFond that his religious
materials and art supplies were missing, Officer LaFond unstrapped his mace, instructed
Shatner to return to his cell emptyhanded, and told Shatner that “he didn’t care about
many lawsuits [Shatner] filed, that [he] wasn’t getting any devil shit or oil paint boards,
pastels, or any other legal property.” On June 30, 2016, Shatner returned from a court
writ and found that Officer LaFond removed additional art supplies from Shatner’s
property box. On July 22, 2016, a chaplain confiscated Shatner’s medallion (See Doc. 120).
Shatner also alludes to death threats from correctional officers in a vague manner
throughout the motion and alleges that Defendant McDonnough threatened to kill him
in 2012. Shatner requests an order for the return of and continued access to tarot cards,
silver chain and star medallion, legal property, and art supplies. Shatner further requests
an order to secure Shatner’s physical safety or for a transfer to another facility.
ANALYSIS
“The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is ‘to minimize the hardship to the
parties pending the ultimate resolution of the lawsuit.’” Platinum Home Mortg. Corp. v.
Platinum Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 722, 726 (7th Cir. 1998) (quoting Faheem–El v. Klincar,
841 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988)). “In [the Seventh Circuit], the standards for a TRO and a
preliminary injunction are functionally identical.” Crue v. Aiken, 137 F.Supp.2d 1076,
1082–83 (C.D. Ill. 2001). “In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party

Page 3 of 5

must show that: (1) they are reasonably likely to succeed on the merits; (2) no adequate
remedy at law exists; (3) they will suffer irreparable harm which, absent injunctive relief,
outweighs the irreparable harm the respondent will suffer if the injunction is granted;
and (4) the injunction will not harm the public interest.” Joelner v. Village of Washington
Park, Illinois, 378 F.3d 613, 619 (7th Cir. 2004).
“A court issues a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit to preserve the status quo
and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit’s
merits.” Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994). “Thus, a party moving for a
preliminary injunction must necessarily establish a relationship between the injury
claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct asserted in the complaint.” Id. “A
preliminary injunction is appropriate only if it seeks relief of the same character sought
in the underlying suit and deals with a matter presented in that underlying suit.” Welch
v. Tritt, No. 15-CV-191, 2015 WL 6971312, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 9, 2015) (citing Kaimowitz
v. Orlando, Fla., 122 F.3d 41, 43 (11th Cir. 1997)). “[A] District Court does not have
jurisdiction to award a preliminary injunction for an injury unrelated to any cause of
action

found

in

the

complaint.”

Johnson v. City of Rock Island, Ill.,

No.

4:11-CV-4058-SLD-JAG, 2012 WL 5425605, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2012) (citing Stewart v.
U.S. I.N.S., 762 F.2d 193, 198 (2d Cir. 1985)); see also Lake v. Robert, No.
13-CV-0198-MJR-SCW, 2014 WL 3610405, at *1 (S.D. Ill. July 22, 2014); Jackson v. Welborn,
No. 12-CV-961-JPG-PMF, 2013 WL 1287369, at *3 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2013).
Shatner has not demonstrated a relationship between the allegations in his
motion and those in the complaint. Although his motion for injunctive relief asserts the

Page 4 of 5

same type of claim as those remaining in this case, it focuses on conduct three years
removed from that described in the complaint. While the motion and the complaint both
pertain to events at Menard, Shatner resided at other correctional facilities from January
2013 to May 2016. And, with the exception of a passing mention of Defendant
McDonnough, the motion asserts allegations against individuals who were never parties
to this case. Because the allegations in Shatner’s motion for injunctive relief are unrelated
to those in the complaint, the motion is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary Injunction (Docs. 120, 124, 125) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 8, 2016
s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel___________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 5 of 5