Donelson v. Shearing et al

Filing 238

ORDER DENYING Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Charles Donelson (Doc. 213 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 5/30/2017. (mah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CHARLES DONELSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. SHEARING, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-CV-95-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Charles Donelson’s Motion for Injunctive
Relief (Doc. 213). Plaintiff commenced an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging several
constitutional violations (Docs. 1, 18). On January 29, 2015, the Court severed Plaintiff’s claims
into separate actions. The instant action pertains to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants violated his
Eighth Amendment rights by denying medical treatment for his tonsils at Menard Correctional
Center (Doc. 18).
On March 16, 2017, Plaintiff moved for an injunction for a medical assessment of his
throat and tonsils (Doc. 213). “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). “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 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, 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., 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, 2014 WL 3610405, at *1
(S.D. Ill. 2014); Jackson v. Welborn, 2013 WL 1287369, at *3 (S.D. Ill. 2013).
In his motion, Plaintiff does not offer any argument regarding the likelihood of success
on the merits. Moreover, his request for relief pertains to his medical treatment at Menard
Correctional Center, a facility from which Plaintiff had transferred before the commencement of
this case. In an attempt to establish a connection between his claims and the instant motion,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are “in concert” with those currently providing Plaintiff with
medical treatment. This bare and unsupported allegation is insufficient to establish a connection
between the relief sought in the instant motion and the claims asserted in the Complaint.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 213) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 30, 2017
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

2