Randle v. Butler et al

Filing 83

ORDER ADOPTING 66 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The 14 Motion for Preliminary Injunction or TRO and the 61 Motion for Emergency Order of Protection, filed by Plaintiff Charles Randle, are DENIED. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 1/3/2018. (mlp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHARLES RANDLE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KIMBERLY BUTLER, JOHN BALDWIN, )
C/O BUMP, C/O WARD, JOHN DOE,
)
DOCTOR TROST, GAIL WALLS,
)
SYLVIA BUTLER, WEATHERFORD,
)
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.
)
and PAPIS,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 3:16-CV-01191-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 66), which recommends denying the
Motion for Preliminary Injunction or TRO (Doc. 14) and the Motion for Emergency
Order of Protection (Doc. 61) filed by Plaintiff Charles Randle. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Randle, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently
incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center, filed this lawsuit alleging his
constitutional rights were violated while he was housed at Menard Correctional Center.
After the complaint was screened pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Randle was permitted to
proceed on four claims: an Eighth Amendment claim against IDOC Director Baldwin
and Warden Butler for subjecting Randle to unconstitutional conditions of confinement
at Menard by placing two inmates in a cell designed for only one and with limited
Page 1 of 5

exercise opportunities outside the cell (Count I); an Eighth Amendment claim against
Wexford, Director Baldwin, Warden Butler, Doctor Trost, and Nurse Walls for exhibiting
deliberate indifference to Randle’s bunion (Count II); an Eighth Amendment claim
against Warden Butler, C/O Bump, and C/O Ward for failing to protect Randle from his
cellmate after being attacked and injured by him in 2016 (Count IV); and an Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress
claim arising from the denial of adequate mental health treatment by Wexford, Doctor
Weatherford, Doctor S. Butler, Doctor Trost, Nurse Walls, Warden Butler, Director
Baldwin, and Nurse Papis (Count VI).
On March 17, 2017, Randle filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction or TRO
asking the Court to order the Director of the IDOC to transfer him from Menard and to
expunge any bogus tickets that have been issued to him (Doc. 14). Within the motion,
Randle details several incidents that he claims were retaliatory, complains about the size
of his cell, and asserts that prison officials assigned him to cellmates who were in the
same gang as his former cellmate who assaulted him (Id.). Randle supplemented his
motion on August 9, 2017, asserting additional acts of retaliation including the
destruction of his personal items (Doc. 47). He also claims an “Orange Crush” officer
made him perform “sexual like” acts on himself (Id.).
Randle was transferred from Menard to Stateville on August 23, 2017 (Doc. 51). In
light of his transfer, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson ordered Randle to show cause as to
why his motion—in which he asked the Court to order his transfer—should not be
found moot. Randle responded by filing an Emergency Motion for Order of Protection

Page 2 of 5

(Doc. 61), as well as a separate response to the Court’s order to show cause (Doc. 65). The
emergency motion for order of protection described incidents that allegedly occurred at
Stateville, while his response to the order to show cause argued that his motion for
preliminary injunction/TRO is not moot because the violations are capable of repetition,
his conditions of confinement at Stateville are “far worse” than at Menard, and his
serious medical needs, including a bunion and defective hernia mesh, are being
neglected at Stateville.
On this record, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson recommended that Randle’s motions
be denied (Doc. 66). In his motion for preliminary injunction, Randle requested a transfer
from Menard and an expungement of any bogus tickets that were issued to him. Because
Randle has since been transferred from Menard, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found that
request to be moot. Furthermore, because Randle’s claims in this case do not reference
any “bogus tickets,” his request for an expungement of these alleged tickets has no
merit. As to Randle’s additional claims regarding events at Stateville, Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson found that a motion for preliminary injunction is not an appropriate avenue
to bring new claims against new defendants. Magistrate Judge Wilkerson did note,
however, that Randle may pursue a new lawsuit, if appropriate, against any prison
officials or medical personnel at Stateville and seek injunctive relief in that case. The
Report and Recommendation was entered on November 2, 2017 (Doc. 66). Randle
sought and received an extension of time to object to the Report and Recommendation
(Docs. 71-73), but ultimately no objections were filed.

Page 3 of 5

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 Randle’s motion, the record, and Magistrate
Judge Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation. Following this review, the Court fully
agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate Judge Wilkerson and
finds no clear error. Randle has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that he will suffer
imminent, irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief. As Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson explained, Randle has already been transferred out of Menard, so his request
for the same is moot. Further, his request to have any “bogus tickets” expunged has no
relation to any claims pending in the underlying lawsuit and thus must fail. And, to the
extent he raises new claims related to his confinement or medical treatment at Stateville,
those claims are improper. Should Randle wish to pursue any claims against staff at
Stateville or any other person not named in the complaint, he should file a new lawsuit.
The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Wilkerson that, in this instance, there is no

Page 4 of 5

justification for the “extraordinary and 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. 66) in its entirety and DENIES the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction or TRO (Doc. 14) and the Motion for Emergency Order of Protection (Doc. 61)
filed by Plaintiff Charles Randle.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 3, 2018
s/ Nancy J. Rosenstengel_____
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 5 of 5