Bakhtiari v. Walton et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court hereby ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 32 ) as MODIFIED by this order; DENIES Bakhtiaris motion for an emergency injunction (Doc. 1 ); DENIES Bakhtiaris motion for sanctions or an injunction to prevent retaliation for filing this lawsuit (Doc. 36 ); and ORDERS Bakhtiari to SHOW CAUSE on or before December 30, 2013, why, to the extent any request for a permanent injunction remains pending in this case, such claim should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 12/6/2013. (jdh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ALIREZA BAKHTIARI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-cv-906-JPG

J. WALTON, UNITED STATES of
AMERICA, M. WINKLMEIER, M.
BAGWELL, D. SZOKE, L. DUNCAN, J.
BAGWELL, and R. STRAUSS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc.
32) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier recommending that the Court deny plaintiff Alireza
Bakhtiari’s motion for an emergency injunction (Doc. 1) and dismiss this case. The Court also
considers Bahktiari’s motion for sanctions or an injunction to prevent retaliation for filing this
lawsuit (Doc. 36).
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.
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).
The Court has received no objection to the Report. The Court has reviewed the entire file
and finds that the Report is not clearly erroneous. However, the Court believes that before
dismissing this entire case, which may seek permanent injunctive relief in addition to preliminary

injunctive relief, it is advisable to explicitly warn Bakhtiari of the possibility of dismissal and give
him an opportunity to respond.
Additionally, the Court notes that in his motion for sanctions and injunctive relief,
Bakhtiari seeks relief based on facts not related to the wrongs alleged in this case, which only
involves allegations of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Bakhtiari may file a new
lawsuit – after exhausting his available administrative remedies – about the alleged retaliation he is
suffering as a consequence of filing this lawsuit, and he may seek injunctive relief in that new case.
Accordingly, the Court hereby:


ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 32) as MODIFIED by this order;



DENIES Bakhtiari’s motion for an emergency injunction (Doc. 1);



DENIES Bakhtiari’s motion for sanctions or an injunction to prevent retaliation for filing
this lawsuit (Doc. 36); and



ORDERS Bakhtiari to SHOW CAUSE on or before December 30, 2013, why, to the
extent any request for a permanent injunction remains pending in this case, such claim
should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 6, 2013
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2