Sanford v. Madison County, Illinois et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 55 ); OVERRULES Sanford's objection (Doc. 58 ); DENIES the defendants' motions to dismiss based on the statute of limitations (Docs. 32 & 34 ); GRANTS the defenda nts' motion to dismiss Sanford's claim for injunctive relief under RLUIPA (Doc. 46 ); DISMISSES without prejudice all of Sanford's claims for injunctive relief in this case; and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 7/31/2017. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ESMOND L. SANFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-738-JPG-RJD

MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS, CAPT.
GARY BOST, CAPT. DONALD BUNT,
SHERIFF ROBERT HERTZ and MADISON
COUNTY JAIL,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc.
55) of Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly recommending that the Court deny the defendants’ motions
to dismiss based on the statute of limitations (Docs. 32 & 34) and grant the defendants’ motion to
dismiss Count 2 to the extent it states a claim for injunctive relief under the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 et seq. (Doc. 46). 1 She
found those claims are moot in light of the fact that plaintiff Esmond L. Sanford has been
transferred to another institution. Sanford objects to the dismissal of his RLUIPA claim for
injunctive relief (Doc. 58).
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.
Since there is no cause of action under RLUIPA against defendants in their individual capacities,
Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 889 (7th Cir. 2009), there is no viable RLUIPA claim in Count 1,
which is only against defendants in their individual capacities.
1

1999).
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Daly’s recommendation to deny the motions to
dismiss on statute of limitations grounds and finds no clear error. Therefore, it will adopt the
Report in this regard.
Sanford objects to dismissal of his RLUIPA claim for injunctive relief, so the Court
reviews that issue de novo. In this case, Sanford complains that he was not afforded adequate
opportunities to practice his religion while detained at the Madison County Jail but that Christian
detainees were. Sanford is no longer housed at the jail. In his objection, Sanford claims he has
not requested injunctive relief under RLUIPA, yet he wants the Court to order the jail to change its
practices.
Clearly, if Sanford seeks to make the jail change its practices in some way, he seeks
injunctive relief. An injunction is “[a] court order commanding or preventing an action.”
Injunction, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). Magistrate Judge Daly was correct that
when an inmate is transferred to another institution, his requests for injunctive relief at the first
institution become moot unless he makes a showing that he will likely be retransferred to that first
institution. Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 811 (7th Cir. 1996). Sanford has made no such
showing, so all of his claims for injunctive relief in this case are moot and will be dismissed
without prejudice.2
For the foregoing reasons, the Court:


ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 55);



OVERRULES Sanford’s objection (Doc. 58);

Technically, the defendant has only asked the Court to dismiss requests for injunctive relief
under RLUIPA. However, any request for injunctive relief under Sanford’s First Amendment
claims is moot as well for the same reasons. The Court may dismiss those requests for relief sua
sponte to save time and expense. See Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003).
2
2



DENIES the defendants’ motions to dismiss based on the statute of limitations (Docs. 32
& 34);



GRANTS the defendants’ motion to dismiss Sanford’s claim for injunctive relief under
RLUIPA (Doc. 46);



DISMISSES without prejudice all of Sanford’s claims for injunctive relief in this case;
and



DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 31, 2017
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

3