Gully, Jr. v. Goins et al

Filing 58

ORDER ADOPTING 57 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 23 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Ronnie Gully, Jr. The 23 motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 9/10/2018. (ceh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

RONNIE GULLY, JR.
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 17-cv-211-DRH-SCW

THOMAS HOUSER, DEREK HUNDLEY,
and NICHOLAS LAMB,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) issued by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams on August 17,
2018 (doc. 57). The Report recommends that the Court deny plaintiff Gully’s
motion for preliminary injunction as moot.

Based on the applicable law, the

record, and the following, the Court ADOPTS the Report (doc. 57) in its entirety
and DENIES AS MOOT the motion for preliminary injunction (doc. 23).
Concisely, plaintiff brought this pro se action for deprivation of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while incarcerated at Lawrence
Correctional Center. Plaintiff alleges retaliation and harassment claims in
violation of the First and Eighth Amendments against defendants Houser and
Hundley. In his motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiff seeks transfer out of

1

Lawrence Correctional Center into a different IDOC facility 1 in order to escape
and avoid further verbal harassment and threats. In their response to the motion,
defendants claim plaintiff’s request has been rendered moot as he was transferred
to Pickneyville Correctional Center sometime in either November or December
2017.
Magistrate Judge Williams issued his Report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) recommending the Court deny plaintiff’s motion as moot as plaintiff
“has already received the relief he requested[.]” Doc. 57 at 5. The Report was
sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of
filing “objections” within 14 days of service the Report.

To date, none of the

parties filed objections and the period in which to file objections has expired.
Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court need not conduct a de novo
review, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985), but rather review the Report
for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
The Court finds no such error.
Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is rendered moot by transfer to
another prison.

See e.g. Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 804 (7th Cir. 2008).

However, a request for injunctive relief can still be valid if a prisoner can
demonstrate a likelihood to be retransferred back to the original facility.

Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 812 (7th Cir. 1996). But, as the Report states,
plaintiff makes no showing in his motion that he is likely to be retransferred back
1

The Court notes plaintiff stated he wished to avoid certain facilities due to the possibility that the
facilities “contain enemies that are out to get” plaintiff. Doc. 23 at ¶ 40. However, plaintiff
provided no further facts to substantiate that claim.

2

to Lawrence Correctional Center. Thus, the requested relief has been rendered
moot by plaintiff’s transfer to Pickneyville.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report (doc. 57) and DENIES as
MOOT the pending motion for preliminary injunction (doc. 23).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.09.10
13:11:09 -05'00'
United States District Judge

3