Hoskins v. Mezo et al

Filing 44

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Plaintiff's 37 Objection to Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson's 36 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and Plaintiff's 21 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 11/2/2015. (bak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
THOMAS MEZO, ZACH FITZGERALD, )
)
WILLIAM WELBORN, SUSAN HILL,
)
and KIMBERLY BUTLER,
)
)
Defendants.
ROBERT HOSKINS,

Case No. 14-CV-1427-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 21), recommending that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 21) be denied. The Report and Recommendation
was entered on June 1, 2015. Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report and
Recommendation on June 9, 2015 (Doc. 37).
Plaintiff Robert Hoskins, currently an inmate at Menard Correctional Center, filed
a motion, which Magistrate Judge Wilkerson has construed as a petition for injunctive
relief and temporary restraining order, indicating that Defendants have intentionally
placed him in unsanitary cells, causing him to suffer various health ailments and putting
him at risk of serious injury.
On April 20, 2015, Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson held an evidentiary

Page 1 of 6

hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. At the evidentiary hearing,
Plaintiff testified that he has been deliberately housed in unsanitary cells while in
segregation at Menard. Plaintiff testified that his current cell has water damage that
fosters the growth of mold that exacerbates his asthma and causes him to suffer from hay
fevers, headaches, and watery eyes. Plaintiff indicated that he did not have headaches
prior to being placed in unsanitary cells, but now experiences them on a regular basis.
Plaintiff further testified that he has been moved to different cells during his time at
Menard, but he has experienced similar conditions in his different cells.
Defendants argued in response that Plaintiff’s contention that the mold in his cells
is causing his medical conditions is unfounded, and he has not provided any argument
that there is an inadequate legal remedy.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson
issued the Report and Recommendation currently before the Court (Doc. 36). The Report
and Recommendation accurately states the nature of the evidence presented by both
sides.
Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of
the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b);
SDIL-LR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see
also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court may accept, reject or
modify the magistrate judge’s recommended decision. Harper, 824 F. Supp. at 788. In
making this determination, the Court must look at all of the evidence contained in the

Page 2 of 6

record and give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have
been made. Id., quoting 12 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 3076.8, at p. 55 (1st ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part).
As noted above, Plaintiff has leveled an objection to the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 37). This timely objection requires the Court to undertake a de
novo review of the Report and Recommendation.
A preliminary 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.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). The purpose of such an
injunction is “to minimize the hardship to the parties pending the ultimate resolution of
the lawsuit.” Faheem-El v. Klincar, 841 F.2d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 1988). In order to obtain a
preliminary injunction, Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that: (1) he is likely to
succeed on the merits of his claim; (2) he has no adequate remedy at law; and (3) he is
likely to suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc.
v. Comm’r of Indiana State Dep’t Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012), citing Am. Civil
Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 589–90 (7th Cir. 2012).
In the context of prisoner litigation, the scope of the Court’s authority to enter an
injunction is circumscribed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Westefer v.
Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2012). Under the PLRA, preliminary injunctive relief
“must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the
court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to

Page 3 of 6

correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). See also Westefer, 682 F.3d at 683 (noting
the PLRA “enforces a point repeatedly made by the Supreme Court in cases challenging
prison conditions: prison officials have broad administrative and discretionary authority
over the institutions they manage”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson ultimately concluded that Plaintiff’s health
complaints did not establish a threat of imminent, irreparable harm to warrant a
preliminary injunction. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson reasoned that Plaintiff
did not proffer any evidence to support a finding that his headaches, watery eyes, and
asthmatic condition would result in “irreparable harm.” Instead, he found that these
conditions were “relatively mundane” and failed to pose any threat of imminent harm to
Plaintiff. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson recommends denial of the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 21).
In Plaintiff’s Objection, Plaintiff argues that he did not have medical records
documenting his injury at the time of the hearing before Magistrate Judge Wilkerson,
but he has since obtained them. Plaintiff has attached these medical records as Exhibit B
(Doc. 37, p. 20-29). Plaintiff again reiterates in his Objection that he has lost his eye sight
in his right eye and suffers from migraine headaches.
The Court has reviewed the medical records and finds that, while they do
substantiate Plaintiff’s claim that he is suffering from allergies, headaches, and eye
issues, they do not support Plaintiff’s claim that he will suffer irreparable harm if he is
not granted injunctive relief. As to Plaintiff’s complaint regarding his loss of eye sight,

Page 4 of 6

the medical records show that Plaintiff had eye examinations performed by two
different ophthalmologists on August 26, 2014, and May 7, 2015. Specifically, on May 7,
2015, Plaintiff complained to Dr. Kehoe that “he was in an unsanitized cell and his eyes
were irritated.” (Doc. 37, p. 24). Dr. Kehoe conducted an exam confirming that Plaintiff
has a cataract in his right eye (Dr. Lochhead’s August 26, 2014 report also references a
cataract in Plaintiff’s eye). There is nothing in the exam indicating that the cataract is a
result of the unsanitary cell conditions; to the contrary, it appears from the medical
record that the cataract could possibly a result of a trauma that occurred in 1997 when
Plaintiff was hit with a hammer. The report specifically states “unlikely improvement . . .
based on macular scar.” (Id.). At the bottom of the medical report under the heading
“Assessment/Plan,” Dr. Kehoe notes “[r]efer for retina consult to be sure no treatment is
needed.” (Id.).
Further, to the extent that Plaintiff argues that his headaches “sometime[sic]”
prevent him from seeing clearly out of his “only good eye,” the Court understands that
this would be a scary and frustrating issue to have, but it simply does not rise to the level
of “irreparable harm.”(Doc. 37, p. 2). See Graham v. Medical Mut. of Ohio, 130 F.3d 293, 296
(7th Cir. 1997) (“Irreparable harm is harm which cannot be repaired, retrieved, put down
again, atoned for.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Roland Mach. Co. v.
Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 386 (7th Cir.1984) (irreparable harm is “harm that
cannot be prevented or fully rectified by the final judgment after trial”). Thus, even
when considering Plaintiff’s medical records, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to

Page 5 of 6

provide evidence that his ailments may result in irreparable injury absent preliminary
relief.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 37) to Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s
Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 36) is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 21) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 2, 2015
s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel____________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 6 of 6