Tolentino v. Butler et al

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Edwin E Tolentino [Doc. 41]. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 11/19/15. (mah)

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

EDWIN E. TOLENTINO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KIMBERLY BUTLER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-CV-196-SMY-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s proposed order (Doc. 41), which the Court construes as a
motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff challenges the conditions he was exposed to while
confined at Menard Correctional Center in March 2013. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges he
was subjected to excessive force and deprived of medical care for resulting injuries in violation
of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause. Following the March 2013
incident at issue in this lawsuit, Plaintiff was transferred to Lawrence Correctional Center. He
returned to Menard on April 24, 2014. Since his return, Plaintiff feels that he faces a risk of
danger and has been exposed to a pattern of brutality and harassment. He describes an incident
in August 2014, when Defendant Michael Baker accused him of being a “snitch,” promised to
make his life a living hell, tightened his handcuffs and pushed him into some bars. Plaintiff
believes that Defendant Baker’s actions were motivated by his decision to engage in protected
First Amendment activities. As a result of the August 2014 incident, Plaintiff sustained bruises
to his wrists and chest.

Plaintiff describes another incident from October 2015. Plaintiff’s cell was searched and
during the search, legal documents pertaining to the misconduct attributed to Defendant Baker
were destroyed. The officer who escorted Plaintiff to his cell made comments suggesting that
this was a deliberate effort to prevent future legal action against Corrections employees. Given
these events, Plaintiff anticipates some type of future physical harm from Defendant Baker or
further destruction of important legal documents.
Plaintiff also states that his back ailment is deteriorating. In October 2015, he went to
sick call and sought a medical referral to an outside hospital for an MRI. A nurse provided him
with pain medication and referred him to a physician. Plaintiff believes his request for an MRI is
being ignored and suggests that an MRI and surgery are the only appropriate treatment options.
Plaintiff also feels that unknown parties are getting away with criminal conduct because they
were not required to wear name tags. He asks for an order requiring Corrections employees to
transfer him to the Stateville facility, arrange for an MRI and issue name tags to all tactical
officers.
In order to establish that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must show
that he has some likelihood of success on the merits of his claim, that he does not have an
adequate remedy at law and that he will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
Exell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 694 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court must also consider the
public interest, weighing factors in a sliding scale approach. Christian Legal Society v. Walker,
453 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2006). Injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further
than necessary to correct the harm and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm.
18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2).

2

Upon full evaluation of the materials presented, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff’s
concerns regarding his confinement in August 2014 and October 2015 demonstrate the need for a
preliminary injunction in this case. The claims in this case arose from an event occurring and
ending in March 2013. The force allegedly used against Plaintiff during that incident is not
ongoing and none of the Defendants named herein are making decisions regarding Plaintiff’s
current medical needs. Under these circumstances, an order requiring Defendant Butler to
provide or implement the relief requested would violate § 3626(a)(2). Accordingly, the motion
is DENIED in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 19, 2015

s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

3