Goings v. Jones et al

Filing 69

ORDER ADOPTING 67 Report and Recommendation, DENYING 26 Motion for Order to Show Cause for Entry of a Preliminary Injunction,and DENYING 32 Verified Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiff Fredrick Goings. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 5/4/2017. (mlp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JONES, ANDREW W. SPILLER,
)
WARDEN OF MENARD, FRANK
)
EOVALDI, and UNKNOWN
CORRECTIONAL AND HEALTH CARE )
)
STAFF,
)
)
Defendants.
FREDRICK GOINGS,

Case No. 3:16-CV-833-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 67), which recommends the denial of
the Motion for Order to Show Cause for Entry of a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 26) and
Verified Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 32) filed by Plaintiff Fredrick
Goings.
On May 2, 2016, Goings, an inmate then housed at Menard Correctional Center,
filed an action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging numerous federal and state claims (Docs. 1, 2). After various orders, Goings is
now proceeding on several claims alleging the staff at Pontiac used excessive force, were
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, and conducted unreasonable searches.
Specifically, Goings asserts state law battery and Eighth Amendment excessive force

Page 1 of 4

claims against Defendant Frank Eovaldi for grabbing him by the neck and shoving his
face into a wall; Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Defendant
Jones and unknown correctional and healthcare staff for refusing him medical care after
the attack by Eovaldi, for depriving him of his blood pressure medication, and for
ignoring his complaints of high blood pressure; and a claim under the Fourth
Amendment that Eovaldi, Defendant Andrew Spiller, and other unknown officers
conducted an unreasonable search of his body by subjecting him to multiple strip
searches and forcing him to spread his butt cheeks.
On June 1, 2016, Goings was transferred to Pontiac Correctional Center. On
December 1, 2016, Goings filed a motion for order to show cause for entry of a
preliminary injunction, which the Court has construed as a motion for preliminary
injunction (Doc. 26). The motion claims that officers at Pontiac are plotting to seriously
injure or kill him in retaliation for exercising his rights to seek redress from the courts.
Goings seeks injunctive relief to prevent the Pontiac officers from harassing him. On
December 19, 2016, Goings filed a motion for temporary restraining order (Doc. 32),
making many of the same allegations and also complaining about another incident at
Pontiac.
On April 4, 2017, Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson issued the Report and
Recommendation currently before the Court (Doc. 67). Objections to the Report and
Recommendation were due on or before April 21, 2017. See 28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1); FED. R.
CIV. P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR73.1(b). No objections were filed.

Page 2 of 4

Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of
the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b);
SDIL-LR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see
also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). Where neither timely nor specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, however, this Court need not
conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985). Instead, the Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear
error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). 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).
The Court has carefully reviewed Goings’ motions and Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation for clear error. Following this review, the
Court fully agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson. Goings has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that he will suffer imminent,
irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief. As Magistrate Judge Wilkerson
explained, Goings’ motions do not implicate any Defendant in this action or seek relief
related to his underlying claims. Therefore, none of the named Defendants are in a
position to give Goings the relief he is requesting. To the extent Goings is seeking to add
claims or defendants to this lawsuit, his motions are improper. Should Goings wish to
pursue any claims against staff at Pontiac or any other person not named in the
operative Complaint, he should file a new lawsuit. The Court agrees with Magistrate
Judge Wilkerson that, in this instance, there is no justification for the “extraordinary and

Page 3 of 4

drastic remedy” of injunctive relief. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 67) in its entirety and DENIES the Motion for Order to Show
Cause for Entry of a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 26) and Verified Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (Doc. 32) filed by Plaintiff Fredrick Goings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 4, 2017
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4