Shatner v. Atchison et al

Filing 159

ORDER DENYING 147 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 4/28/2017. (bak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DARRIN W. SHATNER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOSEPH COWAN, ROBERT DILDAY,
CEDRIC MCDONNOUGH, DANIEL
DUNN, and KEVIN FEDDERKE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Before the Court is a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff Darrin
W. Shatner (“Shatner”) (Doc. 147). Shatner is an inmate with the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”), and Defendants are employees of the IDOC. On June 23, 2013,
Shatner filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). On September 28, 2016,
the Court granted partial summary judgment (Doc. 128). The claims that survived
summary judgment relate to the confiscation of Shatner’s personal property at Menard
Correctional Center (“Menard”) in September 2012 (Id.). Shatner was transferred from
Menard in January 2013, but returned to Menard in May 2016 (Doc. 96-1 at 83; Doc. 120
at 1). On March 15, 2017, Shatner filed the instant motion for injunctive relief.1

1

The Court notes that Shatner filed this motion after he was appointed counsel and after counsel entered
their appearances on his behalf. Generally, the Court will not entertain pro se motions filed by a plaintiff
once he receives counsel. Nonetheless, the Court will address the motion in this limited instance.

Page 1 of 4

BACKGROUND
According to Shatner’s motion, the following events occurred. On March 8, 2017,
Shatner was transferred from the Northern Reception and Classification Center to
Menard. Early the next morning, Shatner was taken from his cell to be transported to
Peoria for a hearing related to his case with the United States District Court for the
Central District of Illinois. By this time, Shatner had not slept for forty-eight hours and
had not received his psychiatric medication. Shatner agreed to settle the case later in the
day on March 9, 2017.
When Shatner returned to Menard, two correctional officers escorted Shatner to
the segregation unit and assaulted him with books and chairs. Shatner was then placed
in a segregation cell and informed that he was under investigation. Shatner was denied
access to pen and paper and deprived of toiletries, bedding, and undergarments. On
March 12, 2017, Shatner suffered two seizures as a result of withdrawal from his
psychiatric medication. Shatner was told that Officer Nagel, who manages the property
room for the segregation unit, had Shatner’s property and that Shatner would receive his
property as Officer Nagel saw fit within a few weeks.
Officer McCarthy and Major Childers drafted the document placing Shatner
under investigatory status on the same day and at the same time that Shatner settled the
case in the Central District of Illinois. Shatner alleges that the events that occurred upon
his return to Menard constituted retaliation for litigation and his religious practices and
beliefs. Shatner requests an order for placement into general population, the return of his
property and medication, and the prohibiting of further assaults. Shatner also requests

Page 2 of 4

that the Court enforce an order from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
regarding access to the law library.
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) (citing Faheem-El v. Klincar, 841
F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988)). “In this 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 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

Page 3 of 4

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. 2012) (citing Stewart v. U.S.
I.N.S., 762 F.2d 193, 198 (2d Cir. 1985)); see also Lake v. Robert, Case No.
13-cv-0198-MJR-SCW, 2014 WL 3610405, at *1 (S.D. Ill. July 22, 2014); Jackson v. Welborn,
No. 12-cv-00961-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 the motion for injunctive relief asserts a
claim similar to those remaining in this case, it focuses on conduct more than four years
removed from that described in the complaint. While the motion and the complaint both
pertain to events that occurred at Menard, Shatner resided at other correctional facilities
in the interim, from January 2013 to May 2016. Moreover, the instant motion asserts
allegations against individuals who are not parties to this case. Because the allegations in
the instant motion are unrelated to those in the complaint, the Court denies Shatner’s
motion for injunctive relief.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Shatner’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
(Doc. 147) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 28, 2017
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
Page 4 of 4