Goings v. Jones et al
Filing
227
ORDER DENYING 225 , 226 Motions for Extension of Time filed by Plaintiff Fredrick Goings and ADOPTING the pending Reports and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Sison (Docs. 209 , 213 , 220 ). See attached Order for further details. Additionally, the issue of sanctions having been resolved, Magistrate Judge Sison is DIRECTED to set new discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 9/25/2019. (mlp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FREDRICK GOINGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 3:16-CV-833-NJR-GCS
ANTHONY JONES, ANDREW
SPILLER, FRANK EOVALDI, STG.
ENGELAGE, REVA ENGELAGE,
MARTHA OAKLEY, REBECCA
STEFANI, CHRISTI RAYBURN,
JEANNE SAUERHAGE, BRENDA
OETJEN, CHARLES COMPTON,
CHRISTOPHER STOREY, JUSTIN
HECHT, TONYA SMITH, JAMES BEST,
and UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on several Reports and Recommendations entered
by Magistrate Judge Gilbert C. Sison. Plaintiff Fredrick Goings, an inmate of the Illinois
Department of Corrections, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations
of his constitutional rights and violations of Illinois state law that allegedly occurred
while he was housed at Menard Correctional Center. Goings is proceeding on an Eighth
Amendment excessive force claim, two Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
claims related to Defendants’ alleged failure to provide medical care and necessary
medication, a Fourth Amendment claim for excessive strip searches unrelated to any
penological interest, a state law battery claim, and a state law assault claim (Doc. 79).
Page 1 of 8
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts Judge Sison’s recommendations
over the objections of Plaintiff Fredrick Goings.
I.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
On June 24, 2019, Judge Sison entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 209)
regarding Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 167). Judge Sison noted that,
within his motion, Goings attempted to state several new claims against numerous
individuals who work at Menard, some were parties to this litigation, and some were not.
All of the allegations in the request for injunctive relief pertain to incidents that allegedly
occurred at Menard. On June 17, 2019, however, Goings informed the Court that he had
been transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center (Doc. 202). As a result, his request for
injunctive relief related to the conditions and individuals at Menard was rendered moot.
Judge Sison therefore recommended that the undersigned deny the motion as moot.
The Court granted Goings two extensions of time to object to the Report and
Recommendation, ultimately ordering him to file his objection on or before September
12, 2019 (Docs. 214, 222). Goings was warned that, absent extraordinary circumstances,
no further extensions would be granted (Doc. 222). On September 4, 2019, Goings filed a
third motion for extension of time to object (Doc. 225). Goings asserts that he is in
segregation, the law library has an inadequate resource reference list of materials, and
the prison has not yet provided him with the requested case law, rules, and annotations.
Goings’s third motion for extension of time is DENIED, as the Court has given
him ample time to form a response. Moreover, the Court does not find the normal
incidents of prison life, even in segregation, to constitute exceptional circumstances. Even
Page 2 of 8
if he did not have access to case law and other legal materials, Goings could have objected
and made arguments as to why the Report and Recommendation was erroneous in order
to preserve his right to de novo review. Because he did not, the Court reviews the Report
and Recommendation only for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739
(7th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The Court may then
“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Here, the Court finds no clear error. When a prisoner who seeks injunctive relief
for a condition specific to a particular prison is transferred out of that prison, the need for
relief, and hence the prisoner’s claim, become moot. Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807 (7th
Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003) (finding
transfer from prison where inmate sought declaratory and injunctive relief concerning
strip search practice mooted claim); Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839, 848 n. 3 (7th Cir.
2000) (finding transfer from Cook County Jail to state prison system mooted plaintiff’s
claim for declaratory and injunctive relief against jail-specific practice). Because Goings
seeks injunctive relief related to specific practices at Menard, his transfer to Pontiac moots
his claims.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Sison’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 209) and DENIES as moot the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff
Fredrick Goings (Doc. 167).
Page 3 of 8
II.
Motions for Sanctions and Related Motions
On January 8, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for sanctions related to Goings’s
refusal to go forward with a scheduled deposition (Doc. 156). Defendants seek $209.10
(the scheduled court reporter fee) and dismissal of the case with prejudice. Alternatively,
they seek the court reporter fee and an order requiring Goings to sit for his deposition
after he pays the fee. Goings filed a response in opposition, arguing that he received the
notice of deposition only 10 days prior to the deposition, when he should have had at
least 14 days’ notice (Doc. 165).
Goings also filed several motions for sanctions and supplements thereto alleging
that “Defendants and agents” engaged in “misconduct and sabotage,” destroyed his
personal property, failed to provide thermal clothing, and gave him food with debris in
it, among other things (Docs. 166, 170, 183, 184, 189).
On July 8, 2019, Judge Sison entered the Report and Recommendation currently
before the Court (Doc. 213). Judge Sison recommends denying Defendants’ motion for
sanctions because the notice of deposition was not sent at least 14 days prior to the
scheduled deposition, as required by the Amended Scheduling Order (Doc. 121). Judge
Sison also recommends denying Goings’s various motions because they are an improper
attempt to bring new claims and new defendants into this case.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due July 25, 2019. The
undersigned granted Goings an extension of time until August 26, 2019, to object to the
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 216). The deadline for objecting has now passed; no
objections were filed.
Page 4 of 8
As discussed above, where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation are made, this Court should only review the Report and
Recommendation for clear error. Johnson, 170 F.3d at 739. While de novo review is not
required here, the Court has reviewed the record and Judge Sison’s Report and
Recommendation for clear error. Following this review, the Court agrees with his
analysis and conclusions. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Sison’s Report and
Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 213). The Motion for Sanctions filed by Defendants
(Doc. 156) is DENIED. The various motions filed by Plaintiff Frederick Goings related to
sanctions (Docs. 166, 184, 189) are also DENIED.
Additionally, the discovery and dispositive motion deadlines were stayed in this
case pending the resolution of the instant motions for sanctions (Doc. 169). Now that the
pending motions have been resolved, Judge Sison is DIRECTED to set new discovery
and dispositive motion deadlines.
III.
Motion for Immediate Transfer to Federal Custody
On July 19, 2019, Goings filed a Motion for Immediate Transfer to Federal Custody
(Doc. 217), in which he contends he has six civil rights cases pending in federal court
against 200 IDOC officials for constitutional and state law claims, including three in this
district court. He claims he has been repeatedly harassed and assaulted by prison officials
and that “targeted threats” against him and his family have occurred at Pontiac, Menard
and Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”). Goings also contends that on July 8,
2019, while at Pontiac, he had saliva, urine and feces thrown at him, which got in his eyes,
and that this “biological matter” came from three prisoners that are “high risk” for
Page 5 of 8
diseases. He alleges that the officials at Pontiac refused to investigate. Further, Goings
contends that he and his family are at risk as long as he remains in the custody of the
Illinois Department of Corrections.
Judge Sison construed Goings’s motion as one seeking a temporary restraining
order or preliminary injunctive relief. He then entered a Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 220) recommending that the undersigned deny the motion because there is no
relationship between the facts and allegations contained in Goings’s motion and those
contained in the Complaint in this case. Moreover, Defendants in this case are different
than the officials named in Goings’s motion. To the extent that the allegations contained
in the motion relate to new incidents not currently being pursued in any action in this
Court, Judge Sison found that Goings must file a new action stating those claims and file
a motion for injunctive relief in that new action.
On August 22, 2019, Goings filed a motion for extension of time to object to the
Report and Recommendation, which was granted (Doc. 224). The Court notified Goings
that his objection was due on or before September 23, 2019, and that additional extensions
of time were unlikely to be granted. Goings filed a motion for extension of time anyway,
weeks before his objection was due. As discussed above, Goings has not presented any
extraordinary circumstances that would warrant additional extensions of time.
Accordingly, his motion for extension of time (Doc. 226) is DENIED.
Because no objections were filed by the deadline, the Court reviews Judge Sison’s
Report and Recommendation for clear error. Again, it finds none. The main purpose of a
preliminary injunction is “to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on
Page 6 of 8
the merits can be held.” University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981).
Accordingly, the preliminary injunctive relief sought must relate to the claims pending
in the underlying lawsuit. See Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per
curiam) (holding that “a party moving for a preliminary injunction must necessarily
establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the party’s motion and the conduct
asserted in the complaint”). A motion for preliminary injunction, such as Goings’s
request here, is not a proper avenue to pursue additional claims or name additional
defendants.
This conclusion should come as no surprise to Goings; he previously filed motions
for injunctive relief that were denied by the undersigned because they did not implicate
any Defendant in this action or seek relief related to his underlying claims (Doc. 69). In
the future, Goings is encouraged to review his Complaint and tailor any further requests
for injunctive relief to the claims in this matter.
Having found no clear error, Judge Sison’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 220) is ADOPTED, and Goings’s Motion for Immediate Transfer to Federal
Custody (Doc. 217) is DENIED.
IV.
John Does
Finally, in the Amended Scheduling and Discovery Order, the Court set a deadline
of June 15, 2018, for Goings to move to amend his complaint to add or substitute specific
defendants for the John Does, identify additional steps that could be taken to identify the
John Does who remain unidentified, and move to amend the complaint to include any
additional claims or parties (Doc. 121). The Court noted that failure to comply with this
Page 7 of 8
requirement would result in the dismissal of the John Does and would likely bar further
amendment of the complaint (Id.). Goings later moved for an extension of time to identify
the John Does, which was denied (Doc. 130).
While Goings has filed motions for leave to amend the complaint, those motions
were denied because he sought to add new claims and parties unrelated to the current
claims in this case. He has not moved to amend the complaint to identify the John Does,
and he has not otherwise informed the Court of their identities. Accordingly, the John
Doe Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 25, 2019
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge
Page 8 of 8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?