Johnson v. Lashbrook et al

Filing 39

ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 11 ) is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 3/13/17. (rah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TRAVIS JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,
JOHN BALDWIN, TY BATES, and
SUZANN BAILEY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-637-MJR-SCW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief District Judge:
I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Travis Johnson is an inmate incarcerated at Pinckneyville

Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”). Plaintiff brought the present lawsuit pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his constitutional rights were violated due to the soy-based
diet he receives at Pinckneyville. Among the relief Plaintiff seeks in his complaint is
preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 1, p. 7), and the Court has construed that portion of
Plaintiff’s Complaint as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (See Doc. 11). That motion
is now before the Court. Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to
succeed on the merits and because the injunctive relief he is seeks is not narrowly
tailored, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 11) is DENIED.
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants in this suit “conspired to violate Plaintiff’s
rights by instituting a policy to serve a soy-based diet.” (Doc. 1, p. 5). He alleges that he

has suffered from “severe medical problems from consuming too much soy” since his
incarceration with the Illinois Department of Corrections began in early March of 2016.
Id. According to Plaintiff, as a result of the soy diet, he has suffered from severe
headaches, bouts of constipation lasting four to six days, a torn anus on April 21, 2016,
loss of circulation, severe stomach pain lasting from six to twelve hours, diarrhea, and
weight gain. Id. at 6. Plaintiff alleges that he has complained and sent grievances about
the soy diet and the issues it is causing him to no avail. Id. at 5. Plaintiff attached to his
Complaint a single handwritten exhibit listing, inter alia, food items and what appears to
be each item’s percentage of soy content. Id. at 9. In its merits review order, the Court
found that Plaintiff had successfully pleaded a single count for an Eighth Amendment
violation against certain defendants for endangering Plaintiff’s health by serving him a
soy diet. (Doc. 10, p. 3).

The extent of Plaintiff’s motion seeking a preliminary

injunction is reflected in his request for relief in his Complaint wherein he seeks a
“preliminary injunction to stop serving soy-laden foods.” (Doc. 1, p. 7).
II.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD
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). Accord Winter v. Natural
Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) (“A preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right”).

To prevail on a motion for a

preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show (1) that he is likely to succeed on the
2

merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, (3) that the
harm he would suffer is greater than the harm a preliminary injunction would inflict on
defendants, and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest. Judge v. Quinn, 612 F.3d
537, 546 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Winter, 555 U.S. at 20).

The “considerations are

interdependent: the greater the likelihood of success on the merits, the less net harm the
injunction must prevent in order for preliminary relief to be warranted.” Judge, 612 F.3d
at 546.
In the context of prisoner litigation, there are further restrictions on courts’
remedial power.

The scope of the Court’s authority to enter an injunction in the

corrections context is circumscribed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2012). Under the PLRA, preliminary
injunction 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 correct that harm.” 18 U.S.C. §3626(a)(2); see also Westefer, 682 F.3d at 683
(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 citation omitted).
III.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his

claims. To succeed on his Eighth Amendment claim, Plaintiff must make a two part
3

showing: First, he must demonstrate he was subject to a deprivation that was objectively,
sufficiently serious so that an official’s act or omission resulted in the denial of the
minimal civilized nature of life’s necessities. Townsend v. Fuchs, 522 F.3d 765, 773 (7th
Cir. 2008). Second, he must demonstrate that the prison official was “deliberately
indifferent” to a serious risk of harm to Plaintiff. Mays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 648
(7th Cir. 2009). Because Plaintiff has offered nothing other than bare allegations that
the soy in his diet is making him sick, he has failed to demonstrate that a jury is likely to
find that he was subject to a serious deprivation due to the Defendants actions. While
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged for threshold review that soy is making him ill, for
preliminary injunctive purposes, he has offered no evidence to support these allegations.
The single exhibit attached to Plaintiff’s complaint showing percentages of soy in
different foot items is insufficient.

Even assuming the exhibit accurately depicts

Plaintiff’s diet, it demonstrates that Plaintiff’s diet contains soy but does not establish a
causal link between the soy and the ailments which Plaintiff attributes to the soy.
Plaintiff has not provided evidence demonstrating that the soy is causing him to become
sick, and, as a result, he has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
Additionally, the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff is overbroad.

Plaintiff

seeks a “preliminary injunction to stop serving soy-laden foods,” apparently seeking an
injunction across all of the IDOC. Such an injunction would be in contravention of the
PLRA’s command that injunctions in prisoner suits be narrowly drawn and extend no
further than necessary. Moreover, the injunctive relief explicitly sought by Plaintiff is
4

too vague. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require courts to “specifically” state
the terms of an injunction, and to “describe in reasonable detail…the act or acts
restrained or required.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d)(1)(B) & (C). In other words, an injunction
must clearly indicate what it is the defendant is to do or not do. An injunction that
orders IDOC to “stop serving soy laden foods” is not suitable under Rule 65(d). See
Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473 (1974) (district court injunction merely providing
relief “against further enforcement of the present Wisconsin scheme against”
Plaintiffs did not comply with Rule 65(d)).
IV.

CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits,

and because the injunctive relief he requests is overbroad and vague, he has failed to
demonstrate he is entitled to the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a preliminary
injunction. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 11) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 13, 2017

s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
Chief Judge
United States District Court

5